Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar F/O, Deceased Sahil ... vs Ramdas (Hdfc Ergo Gen. Ins.) on 21 March, 2024
DLCT010099112017
Presented on : 10-07-2017
Registered on : 10-07-2017
Decided on : 21-03-2024
Duration : 06 Years 08
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 731/17
1. RAJ KUMAR GULATI
S/o Sh.Ram Prakash
2. MAMTA GULATI
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gulati
Both R/o H.No. B-1157,
Gurudwara Singh Sabha,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052. ......Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. RAM DASS
S/o Sh. Hari Lao
R/o H.No. 54/34, Hathi Wala Chowk,
Gole Chakker, Dev Nagar, Delhi.
Also at
Village Muri,
Nangla, Tehsil,
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 1/25
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21
12:56:27 +0530
Kasganj, Patiyali,
Distt. Kanshi Ram Nagar,
UP. .(Driver).
2. ARUN BANSAL
S/o Sh. Kali Charan Bansal
R/o H.No. C-6/178, Keshav Puram,
New Delhi. (Owner).
3. HDFC ERGO GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.(Insurer).
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 24/04/2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 10/07/2017 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 2/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:56:36 +0530 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 21/03/2024
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 02/03/2024 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 the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 21/03/2024 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. B-1157, Claimant(s). Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 3/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.03.21 12:56:46 +0530 the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 10/07/2017 by Investigation Officer (IO) before this Tribunal in the presence of the parties. The DAR was prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident dated 24/04/2017 which occurred at about 12.20.25 P.M. at a spot Azad Market Chowk, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Bara Hindu Rao in which one Sh. Sahil Gulati S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Gulati (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") sustained fatal injuries. A separate petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,02,50,000/- under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident. As per this petition, at the relevant date, time and place, the deceased alongwith his father was coming back on Scooty bearing registration no. DL-8S-BR-9996 make Honda Activa from Azad Market to his home at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. It is further stated that the Scooty was being driven by Petitioner No. 1 at the normal speed and was observing all the rules and regulations of traffic and at about 12.20 P.M, when they reached 50-60 meter from Azad Market Chowk, one one Mini Truck bearing registration no. DL-1GB-6108 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"), driven rashly, negligently and at a MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 4/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:57:02 +0530 very high speed by the R-1 and hit the Scooty of the Petitioner No. 1 with full force as result of which the petitioner and his son alongwith Scooty fell down on the road and and one wheel of the loaded Truck crossed over the son of the petitioner. It is further stated that the Petitioner No. 1 also received injuries over his body and the Petitioner No. 1 cried for help, the R-1 after hearing his cries stopped the Truck after 10-15 paces and came near the Petitioner No. 1 but when the Petitioner No.1 tried to nab him the R-1 ran away. It is further stated that thereafter the Petitioner No. 1 telephoned PCR Van and the PCR Van took the Petitioner No. 1 and his son to Trauma Centre Civil Lines where the doctors declared his son as brought dead. An FIR no. 0034/2017 PS Bara Hindu Rao U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered by the police. Petitioners claim that the deceased was aged around 16 years and was a student. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is stated to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. Parties were directed to file their written statements.
2. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he declined the contents of the petition. On merits, the claim of the petitioners has been declined by R-1. He further claimed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company in his favour and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
3. No written statement was filed by R-2 and accordingly, MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 5/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:57:15 +0530 R-2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 13/11/2018 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
4. R-3/Insurance Company filed a legal offer and the same was not accepted by the petitioners.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 13/11/2018, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1) Whether the deceased Sh. Sahil suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 24/04/2017 at about 12.20.25 P.M. PM involving Mini Truck bearing registration No. DL-1GB-6108 driven by respondent rashly and negligently, owned by Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3 ?OPP (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
6. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Raj Kumar Gulati, father of the deceased, as PW
1. PW1,vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased was his son and lost his life on 24/04/2017 due to an accident dated 24/04/2017 involving the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R1. He MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 6/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:57:25 +0530 further deposed that deceased 16 years of age and was a student and that the petitioners, are the parents of the deceased. He relied upon following documents : "Ex. PW1/1 are the copies of School marksheets and certificates of the deceased (35 pages; Ex.PW1/2 are the copies of aadhar cards of the petitioners;
Ex.PW1/3 is the DAR.
Copies of ITRs of Petitioners No. 1 & 2, which have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 in the affidavit of PW-1, are de-exhibited as Mark A and B;
Mark C is the copy of Marksheet of 10th Standard of the deceased.'' 6.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2. In his cross-examination he deposed that his deceased son was studying in Lilwati Vidya Mandir at Shakti School, which is a private school. He denied the suggestion that all the documents (1-35) Ex.PW1/1 (Colly) are forged and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that his deceased son was not meritorious. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the R-1/ driver.
He further denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place with the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 7/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:57:46 +0530 6.2 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Surender Kumar Aggarwal, Accounts Clerk from Lilawati Vidya Mandir, Sr. Secondary School, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as PW-2. He proved the CBSE Xth Board record of the deceased vide attested copies Ex.PW2/1 (Colly) He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the record.
6.3 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Rajat Yadav, Tax Assistant as PW-3. He proved the ITRs of Raj Kumar Gulati and Mamta Gulati, vide attested computerized copies Ex.PW3/2 (Colly) He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he has not brought any certificate of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that the record brought by him are not correct.
6.4 Petitioners further examined one Ankita Gulati as PW-4. She deposed vide her affidavit Ex.PW4/A. She relied upon the following documents:-
Ex. PW-4/1 is the joining letter of company Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd.;
Ex. PW-4/2(colly) is Pay slip and bank statement; Ex. PW-4/3(colly) are testimonial of class 12 th as well as B.Tech certificate issued by Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for women of PW-4; Ex. PW-4/4 is Certificate u/s. 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act in relation to pay slip and joining letter;
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 8/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:57:51 +0530 Ex. PW-4/5 is Lease agreement/rent receipt.'' 6.5 She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination he deposed that she did her B.Tech in the year 2020. She further deposed that her probation period was for three months after joining the aforesaid company and she has not been issued any official letter regarding confirmation of my job, however, she is regularly getting my salary as per the appointment letter. She denied the suggestion that she is not working with Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. She further denied the suggestion that she has filed the false affidavit or that I am deposing falsely.
6.6 Petitioners' evidence was then closed
7. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether the deceased Sh. Sahil suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 24/04/2017 at about 12.20.25 P.M. PM involving Mini Truck bearing registration No. DL-1GB-6108 driven by respondent rashly and negligently, owned by MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 9/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:57:56 +0530 Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3 ?OPP''
10. 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 infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined Petitioner No.1 as PW-1. He deposed that at the relevant date, time and place, the deceased alongwith him was coming back on Scooty bearing registration no. DL-8S-BR-9996 make Honda Activa from Azad Market to his home at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. He further deposed that the Scooty was being driven by him at the normal speed and was observing all the rules and regulations of traffic and at about 12.20 MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 10/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:58:03 +0530 P.M, when they reached 50-60 meter from Azad Market Chowk, one one Mini Truck bearing registration no. DL-1GB-6108 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"), driven rashly, negligently and at a very high speed by the R-1 and hit his Scooty with full force as result of which he and his son alongwith Scooty fell down on the road and and one wheel of the loaded Truck crossed over his son. He further deposed that he also received injuries over his body and he cried for help, the R-1 after hearing his cries stopped the Truck after 10-15 paces and came near him but when he tried to nab him the R-1 ran away. He further deposed that he telephoned PCR Van and the PCR Van took him and his son to Trauma Centre Civil Lines where the doctors declared his son as brought dead. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the R-1/ driver. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place with the offending vehicle. In totality, the testimony of PW-1 seems reliable and worth acting upon. Since, PW-1 has categorically stated that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of R-1.
12. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, charge-sheet, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle and Postmortem Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 11/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:58:12 +0530
13. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13.1 In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 12/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:58:18 +0530
15. In view of the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
18. In the given facts, the deceased died just before the result of his examination of Class-X was to be declared and as per the marksheet Ex. PW2/1 (Colly) he obtained 10.0 (A1) MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 13/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.03.21 12:58:28 +0530 Grade. On behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that considering the merits of the deceased in academics he would have gone to a very higher stage and would have earned equivalent to his sibling i.e. his sister PW-4. It is submitted that for the purpose of compensation his income be considered at par with the income of his sister as her academic record is similar to the deceased. However, the said contention was vehemently opposed on behalf of the R-3/ Insurance Company that the said parameters would be subjective as every person has own destiny and in the given case, the deceased was a student at the relevant time, therefore, as such he may not be considered at par with PW-4. It is submitted that minimum wages be considered for the purpose of compensation.
18.1 In view of rival submissions and in the light of judicial precedents, this Tribunal is of considered view that it would be appropriate in the given facts and circumstances, the assessment of income of the deceased be taken at par with the Matriculate Person at the relevant time in view of the observations made in case titled as Mira Devi & Anr. And Rahul Vs Mohd. Khalil & Ors. (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) passed in MAC.APP. 1129/2017 & MAC.
App.174/2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The judgment so relied on behalf of petitioners is respectfully distinguished. Hence, the plea on behalf of the petitioners that deceased be considered at par with PW-4 is not acceded to. Accordingly, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 14/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:58:45 +0530
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. In this regard, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1 who was the mother of deceased. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 16 years old at the time of accident. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to a Matriculate Person in Delhi in view of the observations made above at the time of accident i.e. 24.04.2017 were Rs. 16,468/- per month.
19.1 Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 16 years at the time of his death. They have also placed on record a copies of educational qualification documents of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1 (colly), as per which the date of birth of deceased is 24/04/2001. The date of accident is 24/04/2017. Going by the of the deceased, the age of deceased would be around 16 years as on the date of accident. Hence, 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 the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 15/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.03.21 12:58:59 +0530
20. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his parents. However, her mother i.e. Petitioner No. 2 is considered as dependant on the deceased only.
21. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 16 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
22. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.24,89,962/-(rounded off) (Rs.16,468/- X 140/100 X 1/2 X 12X 18). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
23. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 16/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:59:06 +0530 Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Fillial Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- ( Rs. 44,000/- X 2)
24. Hence, the Petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs.1,28,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 88,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
25. The Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.26,17,962/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Two Only) (Rs.24,89,962/- + Rs.1,28,000/-), along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 10/07/2017. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
26. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 67,467/-( Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Seven Only). The entire awarded amount be released in his MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 17/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:59:10 +0530 savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
26.2 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs. 34,00,000 /- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 170 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 170 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.5,46,741/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty One ) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 2.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 18/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:59:15 +0530 petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioner and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 19/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:59:20 +0530 of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded 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 Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 20/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:59:24 +0530 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 22/04/2024.Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:59:29 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) On this 21.03.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/21/03/2024 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 24/04/2017
2. Name of the deceased : Sahil Gulati
3. Age of the deceased : 16 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : N.A.
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 16,468/- assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a Matriculate Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 21/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21
12:59:33
+0530
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Raj Kumar Gulati 52 Years Father of the
deceased
(2) Mamta Gulati 45 Years Mother of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Monthly Income of the Rs.16,468/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 40%
(B)
9. Less-Personal expenses One half deduction has been
of the deceased(C) done
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages Digitally signed by No. 22/25 PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 12:59:40 +0530
10. Monthly loss of Rs.11527.60/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.1,38,331.20/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '18'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.24,89,962/-(rounded off) (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.88,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 20,000/-
estate(J) MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 23/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.03.21 12:59:45 +0530
18. Compensation towards Rs. 20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.26,17,962/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.13,96,246 /- (rounded off) date of award(M)
22. Total amount including Rs.40,14,208/- interest(L + M)
23. Award amount released P-1 Rs.67,467/-
P-2 Rs. 5,46,741/-
MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 24/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 13:00:12 +0530
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance 22/04/2024 of the award CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 21.03.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directi ons to put up the same on 22/04/2024.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 13:00:18 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/21/03/2024 MACT No. 731/17 Raj Kumar Gulati & Ors. Vs. Ram Dass & Ors. Pages No. 25/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.03.21 13:00:20 +0530