Delhi District Court
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 1 Of 31 on 30 April, 2019
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 1 of 31
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 5044116
MACT No. 34109
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010001512009
1. Smt. Parmeshwari w/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash (wife of deceased Ved
Prakash)
2. Ms. Rekha Devi (major daughter of deceased)
3.Sh. Dheraj Kumar (major son of deceased)
4. Ms. Sushila (major daughter of deceased)
R/o H. no. 34, Gali No. 1, Mamoorpur, Narela, Delhi.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Raju @ Ram Kirpal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o 162/2, Harijan Colony, Balswa Village, Delhi
.....(Driver/R1)
2. Smt. Tarvinder Kaur W/o Sh. Raghubir
R/o I351/52, Jahangirpuri, Delhi
....(Owner/R2)
3.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
10, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi7
....(Insurer/R3 )
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.04.2009
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 27.04.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2019
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH
TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 1 of31
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 2 of 31
1. Date of the accident 30.03.2009
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the No Provision of DAR
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal was at that time.
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the No Provision of DAR
investigating officer to the insurance company. was at that time.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 No Provision of DAR
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate was at that time.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information No Provision of DAR
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before was at that time.
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance No Provision of DAR
Company (Clause 11)20.11.2012 was at that time.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). No Provision of DAR
(Clause 11) was at that time.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? No Provision of DAR
(Clause 16) was at that time.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No Provision of DAR
later on? was at that time.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents No Provision of DAR
filed with DAR? (Clause 4) was at that time.
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No Provision of DAR
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, was at that time.
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No Provision of DAR
by the insurance Company. (Clause20) was at that time.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. S.K. Tyagi,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No Provision of DAR
Company submitted his report within 30 days of was at that time.
the DAR? (Clause 20).
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No Provision of DAR
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of was at that time.
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No Provision of DAR
the part of the Designated Officer of the was at that time.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 2 of31
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 3 of 31
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No Provision of DAR
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) was at that time.
18. Date of the Award 30.04.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 18.01.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 07.06.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no.1 Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Parmeshwari savings
IFSC Code (Clause 27) bank a/c No.
90252010175403,
petitioner no. 2
savings bank a/c no.
90252010232902,
petitioner no. 3 Ms.
Sushila savings bank
a/c no.
90252010232917
with Syndicate Bank,
Narela branch, Delhi
& petitioner no. 4
Rekha Rani @ Rekha
Devi savings bank a/c
no.
2092000102558912
with PNB, Panihari
branch, Sirsa,
Haryana
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 3 of31
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 4 of 31
IFSC : PUNB0209200
SYNB0009025
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) with interest @ 12% p.a. in respect of accidental death of Sh. Ved Prakash S/o Late Sh. Attar Singh in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The facts mentioned in the petition are that on 30.03.2009, Sh. Ved Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), a cleaner with DTC, was travelling in a TSR no. DL1RE5310 (hereinafter referred to as offending TSR) as a passenger on payment of fare. At about 3:15 am, when he reached at chowk of Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK Road, Delhi, the driver of said TSR speedily tried to cross the said chowk where blinkers were blinking. Suddenly a truck (hereinafter referred to as offending truck) came from fruit mandi gate and as both vehicles were at a high speed, they dashed and caused the case accident. It has been mentioned in the petition that the truck ran away from the spot and TSR turned turtle. Due to said impact, deceased got crushed under the wheel of truck as TSR had turned turtle and he died at the spot. It has been mentioned in the petition that the said accident occurred due to composite negligence of TSR bearing no. DL1RE5310 and the truck as both the vehicle were being driven rashly and negligently.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 4 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 5 of 31 FIR No. 67/09 PS Adarsh Nagar u/s 279/304A IPC was registered.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of BJRM hospital, Delhi vide PMR No. 312/09 wherein the cause of death was opined as due to craniocerebral damage consequent to road side accident and all injuries were antemortem in nature.
3. R1/ Sh. Raju @ Ram Kirpal/driver and Smt. Tarvinder Kaur/R2 owner of the offending TSR no. DL1RE5310 have filed their written statement jointly wherein they have submitted that no such accident had been caused by R1. They have submitted that offending TSR was insured with R3 vide policy no. 38914714 w.e.f 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009. It was submitted that R1 had not caused the said accident due to his rash and negligent driving and that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has also filed its written statement wherein it had been submitted that the driver, owner and insurance company of the offending truck had not been impleaded as respondent in the present case. It was also submitted that the present accident took place only due to sole negligence on the part of the unknown truck and also FIR was lodged on the statement of R1 against the unknown truck who was responsible for the said accident. It was stated that R1 was plying the offending TSR at a normal speed and carefully. R3 denied that any accident took place on the alleged date, time and place. It was mentioned that the offending TSR was being plied by R1 withot holding a valid driving licence, permit and fitness certificate. It was admitted that vehicle bearing registration no. DL1RE5310 (offending TSR) was insured with it vide policy cover note no. 36255411 valid for the period from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009 in the name of R2 i.e. covering the date of accident 30.03.2009.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 03.08.2009: (1) Whether on 30.03.2009 Ved Prakash sustained fatal injuries 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 5 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 6 of 31 arising out of the motor accident on chowk Sarai Peepal Thala, GT Road involving rash and negligent driving of TSR no. DL1RE5310 and a truck whose number is not traceable till date? (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. Petitioners have examined Sh. Shani Dev (eye witness) as PW1, Sh. Dheeraj (son of deceased) as PW2, Sh. Khem Chand, Sr. Clerk, GTK Depot, DTC, Delhi as PW3 and HC Asha Rani, Complaint branch, DCP Office, Ashok Vihar as PW4.
Insurance Co/R3 has examined Sh. Rashid Ahmed, Dealing Assistant, MLO office, RTO, Wazirpur, Delhi as R3W1 and Sh. Deepak Bajaj, its Senior Marketing Executive as R3W2.
The record would show that other respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners and ld counsel for R3. I have also perused the written submissions on behalf of R3. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners.
Petitioners have examined PW1/Sh. Shani Dev as an eye witness. He has tendered and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. PW1 deposed that he was an eye witness to the road accident dated 30.03.2009 at chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road, Delhi. He has proved his driving licence as Ex. PW1/1. He deposed that he is a driver by profession. He deposed that on 30.03.2009, he was passing through chowk 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 6 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 7 of 31 Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road, Delhi, when at about 3:00 am a TSR bearing no. DL1RE5310 (offending TSR) being driven at a high speed over took the Maruti 800 being driven by PW1 . He deposed that the head light of offending TSR was not on and his Maruti 800 car was behind the offending TSR. He deposed that just after few minutes at about 3:15 am while crossing chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road, the offending TSR which was at a high speed could not notice the truck having Haryana registration number of brown colour and having six tyres, which was crossing the chowk and was coming from fruit mandi side. He deposed that the said offending truck had passed more than middle of the road and was turning towards left with indicators on. He deposed that the speeding offending TSR whose head light was not working applied sudden brakes and due to speed, the offending TSR's driver took a sudden cut towards left after noticing the offending truck, however, due to high speed, the TSR lost balance. He deposed that as the offending truck was turning, the left side of middle portion of the offending truck scratched right side of offending TSR. He deposed that due to application of sudden brakes, the passenger sitting on the back seat of the TSR was thrown out, he was crushed under the back wheel of the truck and the TSR turned turtle. He deposed that at the time of accident, the traffic light at the chowk was at blinking position. He deposed that thereafter he stopped, public gathered at the spot of accident, driver of TSR was sent to hospital in another TSR and as a passenger of TSR had been crushed, one of the persons from the public gave a call to the police but the police did not reach the spot. He deposed that thereafter one of the person from the public took the purse of the victim and found an Icard showing his address. He deposed that he also saw the Icard but as the police did not reach, hence he went to the address of the victim and intimated the accident at the address mentioned in the Icard of the victim. He deposed that he met the son of the deceased/victim at his home who noted down his name and address. He deposed that the accident occurred due to sheer negligence of driver of the offending TSR and to some extent of the offending truck who fled from the spot after the accident. He deposed that the 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 7 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 8 of 31 driver of the offending TSR was liable for the accident to the tune of 75% as he was driving the offending TSR at a high speed and due to absence of head light could not notice the passing offending truck which had already crossed more than middle of the road.
PW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for R1 and R2 wherein he inter alia deposed that he was driver by profession of a Maruti 800 and the said vehicle belonged to Mr. Ajay Kumar. He deposed that on 29.03.2009 there was a party at the house of Ajay Kumar who resided at Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. He deposed that on the date of accident, he was coming from Ashok Vihar side and witnessed the accident at the chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road while going towards GTB Enclave, Delhi. He deposed that it was about 33:15 pm (should be am). He deposed that the party at the house of his employer Ajay Kumar started on 29.03.2009 at about 7:00 pm, it lasted till 1:30 am on 30.03.2009, he was not carrying a watch, he started at about 2:00 am (on 30.03.2009) from the house of his employer while driving Maruti 800 and that while approaching the spot of accident he was alone in the car as he had dropped the other persons who were sitting in his car. He deposed that the accident occurred at red light signal at chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road, Delhi. He deposed that he was driving his car at about 40 km/hr. He further deposed that a speeding TSR overtook his vehicle and at that time he was driving in the middle lane of the road. He deposed that he noticed the registration number of speeding TSR as 5310, before red light a brown coloured truck was crossing the chowk going towards Azadpur, Delhi, the truck had crossed the middle of the road and as the TSR was at a high speed it hit the middle portion of the truck which was crossing the road. He deposed that as per his knowledge the speed of TSR was about 50 km/hr. He deposed that the TSR driver suddenly moved the TSR towards the direction in which the truck was going, the passenger sitting on the back seat was thrown out, due to the impact the TSR turned turtle and the said passenger of TSR was crushed under the back wheel of the said truck.
PW1 further deposed in his cross examination by R1 and R2 that he 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 8 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 9 of 31 could only partially see the truck no. which was HR. He deposed that the truck was at a speed of 3040 km/hr at the time of accident. He admitted that he tried to notice the truck but could only partially see the truck which fled away from the spot of accident. He deposed that he did not go behind the offending truck but stood where the victim was lying. He deposed that after over taking the TSR was ahead of him which was being driven in the middle lane and there was difference of 15 yards between his vehicle and truck. He deposed that the offending truck was on the chowk at the time of the accident, thereafter it came on the first lane which is normally used by a car or four wheeler to drive and where the bus stands do not come on the lane. He deposed that public gathered after the accident and he was also standing as one of the members of the public on the spot.
PW1 was also cross examined by ld counsel for R3/insurance co. wherein he denied the suggestion that he was not a resident of Delhi. He deposed that he had signed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A about two days back. He admitted that he had received the summon to appear in the court. He deposed that Dheeraj took him to the counsel and he visited the office of ld counsel for petitioner on 19.08.2009 and 20.08.2009. He deposed that he had told the registration number of Maruti 800 car to the ld counsel and also had got written the said number in his affidavit. He admitted that the registration number of his Maruti car was not mentioned in the affidavit. He admitted that the said affidavit was not prepared in his presence. He deposed that he knew the contents of the affidavit and that it was prepared on 20.08.2009. He volunteered that the said affidavit was prepared on 21.08.2009 before the ld counsel who drafted the affidavit. He deposed that he is not aware about the father of the owner of the said Maruti car however, his address is Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, but he did not know the house number and gali number. He deposed that he started from Ghaziabad at about 2:00 pm (should be 2:00 am) with two persons and left said persons behind Sunder Lal Jain hospital at about 02:453:00 am. He deposed that the TSR had not hit his vehicle. He deposed that he did not know the word 'negligence'. He 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 9 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 10 of 31 deposed that the TSR was being driven at a speed of 5560 km/hr. He deposed that the police did not come at the spot while he was present there and that he did not make any effort to take the deceased to the hospital. He deposed that he helped the injured to board the TSR. He deposed that he did not make any complaint to the police regarding the incident and had not gone to the police station with respect to the accident. He also deposed that he had not gone to the police station to tell that due to whose negligence the accident had occurred. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of accident.
The ld counsel for petitioners argued that there was a composite negligence on the part of R1 who was driver of the offending TSR and also that of the driver of the offending truck who fled away from the spot. He argued that PW2 Sh. Dheeraj Kumar who was the son of the deceased also filed an application dated 20.09.2009 with DCP North West with a request to conduct fresh investigation in FIR no. 69/09 PS Adarsh Nagar as the IO had conducted investigation only on the direction shown by R1 i.e. offending TSR driver. He argued that R1 only misguided the course of the investigation. He argued that IO also did not record the statement of independent eye witness who was available i.e. PW1 Shani Dev. He referred to the certified copy of site plan filed along with the final report in the form of untrace filed in case FIR No. 69/09 PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and argued that the police was misguided by R1 and as the driver of the offending truck was never found, hence filed a final report in the form of untrace. He argued that the site plan would show that the case accident occurred on the above said chowk in the middle of the road and hence there was composite negligence of the drivers of the offending TSR and truck. He contended that if even one of the drivers would have been vigilant then the case accident would not have occurred.
Ld counsel for R3/insurance co. argued that PW1 was examined on 24.08.2009 and to fill in the lacuna, the petitioners filed the said application with DCP NorthWest after his examination only on 20.09.2009. He argued that PW1 was a planted witness and no reliance should be placed upon his 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 10 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 11 of 31 testimony. He argued that it was not a case of composite negligence and that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paras Singhal, MAC.APP. 807/2005, date of decision 27.01.2014.
The ld counsel for petitioner further argued that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is applicable on the facts of the case as the accident occurred in the middle of the road at a chowk and upon facts the negligence of both the drivers is writ large as a cause of the case accident. He argued that the facts of the present case speak for themselves. He also relied upon the following judgments:
1. Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gita Bindal, MAC.APP No. 179/2004, date of decision 12.10.2012.
2. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Pawan Kumar vs M/s Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal no. 5906/2008, date of decision 29.01.2014.
3.Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of the National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baby Sapna Saxena through Hari Om Saxena, MAC.APP No. 1025/2016, date of decision 11.08.2017.
PW1 has specifically deposed to the effect that he was a driver by profession and that on 30.03.2009 at about 3:10 am he was passing through the spot of accident i.e. chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road, Delhi in a Maruti 800 car while he was coming from a party organised by his employer at Ghaziabad. He further specifically deposed that the offending TSR whose head light was not on, which was being driven at a speed of 50 km/hr overtook his car and that it was being driven at a high speed, in an abrupt manner and it narrowly escaped hitting his car. He further specifically deposed that at about 3:15 am while the said offending TSR was crossing the said chowk it could not notice the offending truck which was crossing the chowk after coming from 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 11 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 12 of 31 fruit mandi side and had crossed more than middle of the road. PW1 also deposed that the said truck was turning towards left with indicator on, the speeding offending TSR whose head light was not working applied sudden brakes, due to speed the offending TSR driver took a sudden cut towards left after noticing the offending truck and due to high speed TSR lost balance due to which the middle portion of the truck scratched against the right side of TSR. He further deposed that due to application of sudden brakes, the passenger/deceased sitting on the back side of TSR was thrown out and was crushed under the back wheel of the truck and the TSR turned turtle. He further deposed that at the time of accident the traffic light was in blinking condition. He also deposed that the accident occurred at the red light signal of the above said chowk. He further specifically deposed that the accident occurred due to sheer negligence of R1 i.e. driver of offending TSR who was at a fault of 75% and also to some extent to the truck driver who fled away from the spot after the accident.
PW2 who is the son of deceased has also deposed in his cross examination that he came to know about the accident of his father through Mr. Shani Dev who was not his relative.
The testimony of PW1 would show that nothing material has appeared in his cross examination to discredit his testimony. He seems to be a reliable and trustworthy eye witness. It seems that the FIR was registered on the statement of R1 i.e. the driver of the offending TSR who has laid all the blame on the driver of the offending truck. It seems that the police was swayed by the statement of R1 and as it could not catch the driver of the offending truck and could not trace the offending truck in the absence of its registration number, it filed the final report in the form of untrace.
The site plan which is part of the final report in the form of untrace would in fact show that the accident occurred at the above said chowk almost in the middle of the road. The circumstances of the accident and the spot of the accident which is middle of the road at the above said chowk would show 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 12 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 13 of 31 that the circumstances speak for themselves that both R1 as well as the driver of the offending truck were guilty of negligent driving leading to the case accident. The principle res ipsa loquitur is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case as the TSR and offending truck were under the management of their respective drivers and such an accident wherein the said vehicles collided in the middle of the road at a chowk would not have happened in an ordinary course of things if both the drivers of offending TSR and offending truck had used proper care. The driver of the offending truck also did not see the offending TSR approaching and the driver of the offending TSR also did not see the offending truck till the very end in the absence of working condition of its head light. The accident did not stop even with the colliding of both the offending vehicles but it continued in the sense that the deceased who was a passenger in the offending TSR fell on the road and was crushed under the tyres of offending truck which did not stop and fled away from the spot. It is thus evident from the testimony of PW1, principle of res ipsa loquitur and the circumstances in which the case accident occurred that it occurred due to composite negligence on behalf of the driver of offending TSR i.e. R1 and the driver of the offending truck who could not be apprehended as he fled away with the offending vehicle from the spot of accident.
The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Paras Singhal (Supra), as relied upon by the ld counsel for R3/insurance co., would not help R3 as its facts are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case, a car had hit a scooter from behind due to which the deceased who was traveling as a pillion rider on said scooter had expired. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held after going through the trial court record that it was revealed that the claimants could not establish the negligence of the driver of the scooter and that the deceased had died due to the negligent act of the driver of the said scooter. As the ld. Tribunal in that matter had attributed strict liability on the scooter and as the car which had been burnt was not traceable, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court remanded the matter back u/s 163 A M.V. Act. It is clear that the facts of that case are distinguishable and different from the 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 13 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 14 of 31 facts of the present case as in the present matter it has been held that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the driver of the offending TSR and that of the offending truck.
The ld counsel for insurance co/R3 also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Kokila Bai vs Abdul Bahav, I(2005) ACC 458 (DB) and argued that the petition should be dismissed.
This judgment in the case of Kokila Bai (Supra) is also distinguishable on the facts of the present case and would not help R3. In that case, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held from the evidence of two witnesses AW.3 and AW.6 that they had not witnessed any accident which lead to the death of deceased persons. It was further held in that case that if they had really seen the accident then their conduct was highly unnatural. It was further inter alia held that the said witnesses had not even contacted the family members of the deceased persons after the accident, either on the same day or immediately thereafter.
In the present case, however, it is evident that this Tribunal has come to a conclusion that PW1/Shani Dev was a reliable and trustworthy eye witness. Further, PW1, the eye witness of the case specifically deposed that he also saw the Icard of the deceased but as the police did not reach, hence he went to the address of the victim and intimated the accident at the address mentioned in the Icard of the victim. He also specifically deposed that he met the son of deceased/victim at his home who noted down his name and address. Similarly, PW2 who was son of the deceased also deposed in his cross examination that he came to know about the accident of his father/deceased through Mr. Shani Dev (PW1) who was not his relative. This was a natural conduct on the part of PW1. In the said circumstances, the facts of the case of Kokila Bai (Supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and would not help R3.
The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prem Lata Shukla, 2007 (3) T.A.C. 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 14 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 15 of 31 11 (S.C.), as relied upon by ld counsel for R3, would also not help R3 as it was primarily held on the facts of that case that a party objecting to the admissibility of a document (FIR) must raise its objection at the appropriate time, if the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefor consent of the other party has been obtained, the former cannot be permitted to turn around and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and thus should not be relied upon. In the present case, however, the case FIR has neither been marked nor exhibited by any witness. The said judgment would thus not help R3.
It thus stands proved that the death of the deceased was due to composite negligence of R1 (driver of the offending TSR) and that of the driver of offending truck while driving their respective offending vehicles.
It is thus held while deciding issue no. 1 that it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that on 30.03.2009 at about 3:15 am, the deceased Mr. Ved Prakash sustained fatal injuries arising out of the motor accident on chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GT road due to composite negligence on the part of driver of TSR no. DL1RE5310 and the offending truck which is not traceable.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW2 Sh. Dheeraj ( son of the deceased) has deposed through his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He has proved copy of death certificate of deceased as Ex. PW2/1, ration card of deceased as Ex. PW2/2, salary certificate of deceased as Ex. PW2/3 and request letter for conducting fresh investigation in FIR No. 67/09 PS Adarsh Nagar to DCP North West as Ex. PW2/4 (colly).
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 15 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 16 of 31 During cross examination as conducted by ld counsel for R1 and R2 he deposed that he was not an eye witness of the case. He deposed that he was an unemployed person and came to know about the accident of his father through Mr. Shani Dev who was not his relative.
The copy of Sewa Patra of deceased is on record as part Ex. PW3/1 (colly) which shows the date of birth of deceased as 10.06.1959, hence, on the date of accident (30.03.2009), deceased was aged about 49 years & 9 months.
He deposed that his father was permanent employed with DTC as a cleaner at GTK Depot, Delhi and was earning about Rs. 19,000/ per month.
Petitioners have examined Sh. Khemchand, Sr. Clerk, GTK Depot, DTC, Delhi as PW3. He proved the salary record of the deceased Ved Prakash as Ex. PW3/1 (colly containing 5 pages).
PW3 was cross examined only on behalf of R1 and R2 wherein he deposed that the total salary of the deceased for the month of Jan, 2009 as per the record was Rs. 16,425/. He deposed that no income tax had been deducted from that salary. He deposed that the take away salary of the deceased was Rs. 13,062/.
PW3 has proved the salary record as Ex. PW3/1 which mentions the salary of the deceased for the months of April 2008 to March 2009. The salary for the month of February 2009 has been mentioned as Rs. 16,425.22/. PW3 has also deposed that in his cross examination that the total salary of the deceased for the month of January 2009 as per record was Rs. 16,425/. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,97,100/ (Rs. 16,425/ x 12). It was an admitted position during final arguments that at the relevant time the exemption of standard deduction was Rs. 1,10,000/ and thus the taxable income of the deceased was Rs. 87,100/ (Rs. 1,97,100/ minus Rs. 1,10,000/). It was further an admitted position that the said taxable income fell within the bracket of 10% income tax, thus the income tax to be deducted was Rs. 8710/ (@ 10% of Rs. 87,100/). Hence, the total annual income comes to Rs. 1,88,390/ (Rs. 1,97,100/ minus tax of 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 16 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 17 of 31 Rs. 8710/). The monthly income of the deceased thus comes to Rs.15,699/ (after rounding of) (Rs. 1,88,390/ divided by 12).
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(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 selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 17 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 18 of 31 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 future 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. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) In the case in hand, the deceased was a permanent employed person and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 49 years & 9 months. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iii) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 30% of the established income as he was between the age group of 40 to 50 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 15,699/+30% of 15,699/ which comes to Rs.15,699/+ Rs.4709/ = Rs.20,408/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Claimants are the wife, daughters and son of deceased. PW2 during cross examination as conducted on behalf of R1 and R2 deposed that his elder sister Rekha was married, another sister Sushila was unmarried and he was aged about 25 years and was unemployed.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 18 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 19 of 31 Therefore, Rekha cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased.
In the present case, the deceased was married and had 3 dependent family members, hence, there were 3 dependents upon the deceased. Hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) in paragraph no 61
(v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 49 years & 9 months at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "13" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs. 21,22,432/ [i.e. Rs. 20,408/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X13 (multiplier) X2/3 (dependency)].
10. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses.
11. Filial Consortium/Consortium.
The deceased was a married person and the petitioners are his widow and children. It is now a settled law in terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, date of decision 18.09.2018: 2018(8) SCJ 338:2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and the judgment 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 19 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 20 of 31 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Uttrakhand Transport Corporation Vs. Jyoti Sardana, MAC.APP.920/2017, date of decision 03.04.2019 that the compensation under the head of filial consortium/consortium is required to be awarded to all the claimants to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ each i.e. in the present matter Rs. 1,60,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ x 4).
12. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
13. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 21,22,432/
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
Filial Consortium/Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/
________________
Total Rs. 23,12,432/
________________
[Rounded off to Rs. 23,12,500/]
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand Five hundred only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 20 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 21 of 31 date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 24.04.2009 till realisation of the compensation amount. (Petitioners are not entitled to interest from 23.04.2016 to 27.09.2018 in terms of order dated 23.04.2016). The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
14. Liability It has already been held while discussion on Issue no. 1 that the death of the deceased was due to composite negligence of R1 and the driver of offending truck while driving their respective offending vehicles.
Ld counsel for the petitioners argued that it is the case of composite negligence and as such each wrong doer including R1 to R3 would be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for the payment of entire damages and the claimants/petitioners would be having the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In that regard he referred to the following judgments:
1. T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748
2. Khenyei vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 4244 of 2015 as decided on 07.05.2015 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
15. Without referring to the entire series of decisions on the point in issue, it would be appropriate to refer to the leading cases on this point. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " T.O. Antony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors." reported at (2008) ACC 706 (SC): (2008) 3 SCC 748 has discussed the concept of 'composite negligence' and the apportionment of liability amongst joint tort feasors in para6 of the judgment as under: " Composite negligence" refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 21 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 22 of 31 person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. Xxxxxx"
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4244/15 decided on 07.05.2015 has concluded the legal position with regard to liability of insurance company in case of composite negligence as under: " .........What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:
(i) In the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.
(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 22 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 23 of 31
(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal in main case, one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
(iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award."
17. Having judged the facts of the present case on the touch stone of the legal position as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned two judgments and my findings on issue no. 1 qua the composite negligence of both the drivers of the above said offending TSR and offending truck (which could not be traced), it is held that R1 to R3 shall be liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners/claimants and R1 to R3 would be having joint and several liability.
The ld counsel for R3 has prayed for recovery rights and has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prem Kumari vs Prahlad Dev, Appeal (Civil) 490 of 2008, date of decision 18.01.2008. He has argued that in case of breach of licence conditions by the insured, in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the amount, and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.
The record would show that R3 i.e. insurance co of the offending TSR has examined Sh. Rashid Ahmed, Dealing Assistant, MLO office, RTO, Wazirpur, Delhi as R3W1 and Sh. Deepak Bajaj, its Sr. Marketing Executive 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 23 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 24 of 31 as R3W2.
R3W1 brought the official record pertaining to the DL no. C08062004554445 in the name of Ram Kirpal s/o Sh. Mohan Lal i.e. R1. He deposed that the said licence was fake and was not issued by his office. The said report has been proved as Ex. R3W1/1. R3W2 has proved the insurance policy of the offending TSR as valid from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009 as Ex. R3W2/1. The copy of legal notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC given by R3 to R1 and R2 for production of the original permit, DL, policy and fitness certificate has been proved as Ex. R3W2/2 with postal receipt as Ex. R3W2/3 and Ex. R3W2/4 with AD card as Ex. R3W2/5.
The testimony of R3W1 specifically proves that the driving licence of R1 i.e. the driver of offending TSR was fake and had not been issued by the concerned office. Further, R1 and R2 did not enter the witness box to prove that R1 was having a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident to drive a TSR.
In view of above said discussion, in the present case, though, it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1/Raju@ Ram Kripal was not having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident at the relevant time, yet the insurance company/R3 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners/claimants and it can very well recover the said amount from R2/ Smt. Tarvinder Kaur i.e. rightful owner of the offending vehicle/TSR as per rules . R3/Insurance co. would thus be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners but are granted recovery rights against R2/M/s Tarvinder Kaur.
18. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Iffco Tokio General Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 23,12,500/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 24 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 25 of 31 of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance company to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance company is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
19. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ each be given to daughters and son of deceased namely Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Ms. Sushila and Ms. Rekha and from the same an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each be released to them in their savings bank account a/c no. 90252010232902 in the name of Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, savings bank a/c no. 90252010232917 in the name of Sushila with Syndicate bank, Narela branch, Delhi and in savings bank a/c no. 2092000102558912 in the name of Ms. Rekha with PNB, Panihari branch, Sirsa, Haryana as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in their names in 24 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 24 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 25 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 26 of 31 the Tribunal.
Remaining amount be given to Smt. Parmeshwari who is wife of deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 90252010175403 with Syndicate bank, Narela branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 48 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 48 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 26 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 27 of 31 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.
(g) 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
20. Relief Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 23,12,500/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 24.04.2009 (Petitioners are not entitled to interest from 23.04.2016 to 27.09.2018 in terms of order dated 23.04.2016) till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 insurance company to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondents no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 27 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 28 of 31 receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
It is clarified that latest directions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding opening of MACT Claims SB account by the claimants in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO 842/2003 under the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme have been given separately in the order sheet. It is further clarified that the present award has only been passed as the statement of the claimants under clause 29 of MCTAP had already been recorded. It is also clarified that if the claimants fail to comply with the said directions then the compensation amount shall not be disbursed to them till compliance of the aforesaid directions by them.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other details Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 28 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 29 of 31 In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the joint statements of petitioners and statement of Ms. Rekha were also recorded wherein they stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would furnish form 15 G so that no TDS is deducted.
21. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. R3/Insurance co. is directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of petitioners from the court record.
Digitally
signed by
AMIT BANSAL
AMIT Date:
BANSAL 2019.05.01
15:41:36
+0530
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 30th April 2019 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 29 of31
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 30 of 31
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 30.03.2009
2. Name of deceased: Ved Prakash
3. Age of the deceased: 49 years 9 months at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Permanent employee
5. Income of the deceased:20,408/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Parmeshwari 60 years wife
(ii) Sh. Dheeraj Kumar 30 years Son
(iii) Ms. Sushila 26 years Daughter
(iv) Ms. Rekha 31 years Son
(iv)
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 15,699/ .
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 30%= Rs. 4709/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/3rd
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.13,605/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,63,260/
12. Multiplier (E) 13
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 21,22,380/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,60,000/ 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 30 of31 34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 31 of 31 consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 23,12,500/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 16,65,000/ (interest is award (M) not given for the period 23.04.2016 to 27.09.2018 in terms of order dated 23.04.2016)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 39,77,500/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,50,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 37,27,500/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 03.06.2019.
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2019.05.01
15:41:47 +0530
(AMIT BANSAL)
PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
30.04.2019
34109 Parmeshwari vs Raju Page 31 of31