Delhi District Court
Mact No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & ... vs . Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 1/34 on 26 October, 2021
DLCT010009722015
Presented on : 25022015
Registered on : 25022015
Decided on : 26102021
Duration : 6 Years 08 Months
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICERMACT02, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 56529/16
1. Manoj Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Sahab Bahadur Gupta
2. Harsh Gupta
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta
3. Prateek Gupta
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26
16:48:51
+0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 1/34
All R/o H. No. 339, Gali Prakash,
Teliwara, Bara, Delhi110006. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Ramesh Chand Raigar
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Raigar
R/o Vill. Achrol PS Chandwaji,
Tehsil Ajmer, Distt. Jairpur,
Rajasthan(Driver).
2. Rajasthan Roadways Corporation,
Jaipur, Rajasthan(Owner). .......Respondents.
The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 30.11.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 02.12.2014 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:49:02 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 2/34 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the N.A. Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. 25.02.2015 P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 25.02.2015 Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 25.02.2015 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the petitioner (s). 25.02.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA later on?
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:49:15 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 3/34 filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer NA by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the NA Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance NA Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the NA liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:49:23 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 4/34
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on NA the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the petitioner (s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 26.10.2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties?
20. Whether the petitioner (s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were 21.12.2020 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 petitioner
(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:49:29 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 5/34 passbook.
22. Date on which the petitioner(s) produced the 17.03.2021 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
H. No. 339, Gali
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Prakash, petitioner(s). Teliwara, Bara, Delhi110006.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c no. of petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with petitioner no. 1 :
IFSC Code. 6858541713,
Indian Bank,
Branch
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi; IFSC :
IDIB00K029.
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26
16:49:36 +0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 6/34
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 2 :
6858633263,
Indian Bank,
Branch
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi; IFSC :
IDIB00K029.
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 3 :
6858625344,
Indian Bank,
Branch
Kashmere Gate,
Delhi; IFSC :
IDIB00K029.
25. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account Yes
(s) in near his place of residence?
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26
16:49:42 +0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 7/34
26. Whether the petitioner (s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, SBI, Tis Hazari name and branch of the bank of the Claims Courts, Delhi. Tribunal in which the award amount is to be deposited/transferred.
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A DAR was filed on 25.02.2015 by Investigation Officer (IO) before my Ld. Predecessor in the presence of all the parties of this case. The DAR was prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred at about 21:30 hours on 30.11.2014 at DCM Chowk, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi in which one Smt. Mamta Gupta W/o Sh. Manoj Gupta (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") lost her life. As per DAR, the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration no. DL-1SB-9781, which was being driven by her husband Sh. Manoj Gupta. At the relevant date, time and place, a bus bearing registration no. RJ-14-PC- 1824 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") struck the said scooter from behind. Both the riders of the said scooter fell down on the road and the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:49:52 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 8/34deceased was run over by the offending vehicle. Sh. Manoj Gupta also sustained injuries. An FIR no. 611/14 PS DBG Road was registered at the instance of Sh. Manoj Gupta U/s 279/337/304A IPC. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle and R-2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Petitioners were directed to file statement of facts in the prescribed Form G. R-1 and R-2 were also directed to file their Written Statement.
2. Petitioners filed a petition U/s 166/140 of M.V. Act wherein they claimed that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of her death, was working as a Web Designer and was also associated with Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir, Gali Teliwara, Delhi-6. Petitioners further stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 21,000/- per month. Petitioners seek a sum of Rs. 90 Lakhs as compensation in respect of the untimely death of the deceased.
3. A written statement was filed by R-1 wherein he took preliminary objections to the effect that the claim of the petitioners is not maintainable as the person driving the scooter (i.e. petitioner no. 1 Manoj Gupta) was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, without wearing any helmet and without any driving licence; that the deceased was not wearing any helmet and she fell down on the road when petitioner no. 1 lost balance of his scooter; that the deceased died due to her head injuries; that the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present petition as they are concealing true facts. On merits, the averments in the petition were simply Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:50:00 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 9/34denied except for the admissions regarding the place of occurrence, registration of FIR, nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the identities of the respondents. Additionally, R-1 claimed that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
4. No WS came to be filed on behalf of R-2 till 04.08.2015 (i.e. the date when issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor).
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 04.08.2015, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Smt. Mamta Gupta suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 30/11/2014 at about 21:30 hrs. involving vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-PC-1824 driven by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Respondent No. 2?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:50:06 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 10/34 WS ON BEHALF OF R-2
6. A written statement was filed on behalf of R-2 on 05.10.2015. However, since no formal order was passed by my Ld. Predecessor to take the same on record, accordingly, the same shall not be considered while disposing of the present matter.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE 7.1 The petitioner no. 1 examined himself as PW-1 in support of petitioners' claim. The said petitioner filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he stated :-
(i) that the deceased was his wife and who lost her life on 30.11.2014 in an accident involving the offending vehicle, which was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by R-1 at the relevant time;
(ii) that R-1 fled the spot after the accident;
(iii) that FIR no. 611/14 PS DBG Road was registered at his instance;
(iv) that the deceased was 39 years old at the relevant time and was employed as a Web Designer with "Twins Picture" and deceased also used to earn money by sewing cloths for the deity of temple Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir;
(v) that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 21,000/- from the said employment and part time vocation; Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:50:12 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 11/34
(vi) that a sum of Rs. 90 Lakhs may be awarded as compensation to the petitioners. He has relied upon following documents in support of his claim :-
"Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of FIR, Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of Aadhar Card of de- ceased Mamta Gupta;
Ex. PW1/4 is the copy of Aadhar Card of peti- tioner Harsh Gupta;
Ex. PW1/5 is the copy of Aadhar Card of peti- tioner Prateek Gupta;
Ex. PW1/6 is the 12th Class Certificate of de- ceased Mamta Gupta;
Ex. PW1/7 is the original death certificate of de- ceased Mamta Gupta;
Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9 are the certificates of income of deceased Mamta Gupta issued by M/s Twins Pictures and another issued by Shri Vaishya Bisa Agarwal Panchayat Mandir;
Ex PW1/10 is the copy of driving licence of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/11 is the medical treatment papers of PW-1; and Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:50:19 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 12/34 Ex. PW1/12 is the fees slip of Harsh Gupta."
7.2 PW1 was cross-examined at length on behalf of R-1 and R-2.
7.3 PE was then closed on 06.03.2019.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
8. R-1 examined himself as RW1 and deposed, through his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, that he was employed as a driver by Rajasthan Roadways and that petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) was riding his scooter in a rash and negligent manner and without following traffic rules; that petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) and the deceased were not wearing any helmets; that the accident was caused due to the negligence of deceased as well as petitioner no. 1 (PW-1); that there was no eye witness of the said accident and he (R-1) had no role whatsoever in the occurrence of the accident; that he is holding an effective driving licence. He relied upon a copy of his driving licence which is Ex. RW1/1. He was cross-examined in brief on behalf of the petitioners.
8.1 R-1 then closed his evidence on 29.11.2019.
8.2 R-2 closed his evidence through its counsel on 29.11.2019.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:50:27 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 13/34 FINDINGS
9. On 29.11.2019, matter was fixed for addressing oral final arguments. Also directions were passed on 12.11.2020 by this Tribunal whereby all the parties were directed to file their written submissions. However, till date, none of the parties have come forward to address oral arguments nor have they filed their written submissions. Accordingly, the matter shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record.
10. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased Smt. Mamta Gupta suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 30/11/2014 at about 21:30 hrs. involving vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-PC-1824 driven by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by the Respondent No. 2?
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:50:36 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 14/34 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.
12. As already discussed above, the petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) Sh. Manoj Gupta as an eye witness of the accident. PW-1 has stated that he was riding his scooter and the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on the same at the relevant date, time and place when the offending vehicle, which was being driven rashly and negligently as well as at a high speed, came from behind and dashed against his scooter. PW-1 further deposed that both of them (i.e. the riders of the scooter) fell down due to the impact and the deceased died at the spot. PW-1 further deposed that he himself sustained injuries in the said accident. PW-1 further deposed that R-1 (i.e. driver of the offending vehicle) fled from the spot. PW-1 further deposed that they were removed to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where the deceased was deceased was declared as 'brought dead'. PW-1 further deposed that he got the FIR no. 611/2014 PS DBG Road registered in respect of the said accident. PW-1 has relied upon only the copy of FIR, Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:50:44 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 15/34 which is Ex. PW1/1, in order to corroborate his oral testimony as to the facts and circumstances leading to the present accident. Surprisingly, he has not bothered to rely upon the DAR or the copy of charge-sheet and its usual annexures (i.e. FIR, site plan, MLC, driving licence, mechanical inspection reports of scooter as well as offending vehicle, seizure memos , arrest memo, statements of witnesses recorded U/s 161 CrPC) which are available on the judicial file and accordingly, the said documents could not be considered while disposing of the present case. Against the said oral testimony of PW- 1, R-1 examined himself as RW1 and deposed that petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) was riding his scooter in a rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules due to which the accident occurred at the relevant time. He further deposed that offending vehicle had nothing to do with the accident. It is apparent that this tribunal is tasked with assessing which of the above two oral testimonies, giving out contrary versions of the circumstances leading up to the accident, is reliable enough to be acted upon.
13. Record reflects that PW-1 has been subjected to extensive cross- examination by R-1 and R-2. It has been noticed by this Tribunal that the cross-examination of PW-1 is basically directionless. Respondents are not pursuing a single line of defence while cross-examining PW-1. The cross- examination dated 04.10.2016 of PW-1 seems to reflect the respondents to be suggesting that no accident took place on account of the offending vehicle, that he (PW-1) saw R-1 for the first time only in the police station and that the deceased died as his (PW-1's) scooter lost his balance at the relevant time. The said suggestions were promptly turned down by PW-1. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26 16:50:52 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 16/34 PW-1 has further denied suggestions to the effect that the spot of accident was crowded at the relevant time and that vehicles were being plied at a very slow speed. Contrary to the cross-examination dated 04.10.2016, the cross- examination dated 22.09.2017 reflects that R-1 seems to suggest to PW-1 that his scooter was involved in an accident with another vehicle in front of him (PW-1) and due to which he lost his balance leading to the fall of deceased from his scooter and consequent head injuries on the person of deceased. The said suggestion, as to the involvement of another vehicle in the occurrence of present accident, is beyond the pleadings of R-1 and is liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, the said suggestion was promptly declined by PW-1. PW-1 further declined the suggestion of R-1 to the effect that R-1 was not involved in the accident and he (R-1) has been falsely implicated to seek compensation. Rest of the cross-examination pertains to question of income of the deceased. The general tenor of the cross- examination of PW-1 does not seem to reflect any inconsistency or falsity. Rather, the introduction of a new version of events by R-1 during cross- examination of PW-1 reflects the general unreliability of the claim made by R-1. On the other hand, it has come on record in the cross-examination (dated 04.10.2016) that the scooter of PW-1 was damaged in the rear and that after being hit by the offending vehicle, he (PW-1) fell down on the left side. The above responses were made by PW-1 in response to queries of respondents and which queries seem to reflect that the respondents admit that there was a collision between the scooter which the deceased and PW-1 were riding and the offending vehicle. However, respondents have not been able to extricate themselves from the effect of said admissions. In fact, the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2021.10.26 16:51:01 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 17/34
oral testimony of R-1 does not even reflect as to on what grounds he (R-1) has deposed that petitioner no. 1 (PW1) was driving his scooter in a rash and negligent manner and how petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. In fact, R-1 has failed to depose, in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A, that the scooter of the petitioner no. 1 (PW-1) became unbalanced on the curve of the main road (at the spot of accident) leading to the fall of deceased from the scooter, as has been plead in his written statement. It is apparent that not only has R-1 failed to formalise his defence as raised in his WS at the time of recording of his evidence but is also blowing hot and cold as to the cause of accident. Accordingly, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the claim of R-1 as to the reasons surrounding the occurrence of accident. On the contrary, the cross-examination of PW-1 reveals that he has not betrayed any sign of falsity or untruth. He has remained steadfast in his claim that the offending vehicle being driven by R- 1 dashed against his scooter at the relevant time. This Tribunal does not find any reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW-1, particularly in view of the fact that the version of PW-1 is duly supported by FIR Ex. PW1/1.
14. The above observations are sufficient to hold that the scooter, which the deceased as well as PW-1 were riding at the relevant time, was struck from behind by the offending vehicle being driven by R-1 at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (ie. The offending vehicle) struck against the scooter which the deceased was riding alongwith PW-1 at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:51:09 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 18/34offending vehicle or any negligent/sudden movement on the part of PW-1, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in 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.
15. In view of the admission made by R-1 in his WS at para no. 12, no dispute is left regarding the death of deceased on account of injuries sustained in the above accident. In fact, the factum of death of deceased is also made out from the FIR Ex. PW1/1.
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. 22. 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 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:51:19 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 19/34 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.
18. Admittedly, the deceased was the wife of petitioner no. 1 and mother of petitioners no. 2 and 3. The petitioners claim that the deceased was working as a Web Designer and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month as salary. Petitioners further claim that the deceased used to earn Rs. 6,000/ per month by sewing cloths of deity of temple of Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir, Gali Teliwara, Delhi6. In order to substantiate the above claims, the petitioners have placed on record 02 certificates Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9 issued by the alleged employers of the deceased i.e. "Twins Pictures" and "Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir, Gali Teliwara, Delhi6" respectively. Perusal of the certificate Ex. PW1/8 issued by "Twins Pictures" reflects that the deceased was working as "Computer Designer" since 25.04.2013. The above certificate is in contrast with the claim of the petitioners as the same reflects that the deceased was working as a "Computer Designer" and not as a "Web Designer", which is the claim of the petitioners. Be that as it may, this Tribunal fails to understand as to what a "Computer Designer" does. This fact brings the relevant certificate under a cloud of doubt. Apart from the above, the petitioners have placed on record the senior school certificate pertaining to deceased as Ex. PW1/6. The said school certificate does not Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:51:26 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 20/34reflect that the deceased studied computers. No other certificate has been placed on record by the petitioners in order to depict that the deceased ever studied computers or web designing as a subject. In the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a "Web Designer" with "Twins Pictures", particuarly in view of the fact that the petitioners have neither bothered to place on record any salary statement or any bank statement reflecting the receipt of salary by the deceased nor have they bothered to examine the proprietor of Twins Pictures.
Proceeding further, it has been noticed by this Tribunal that the certificate Ex. PW1/9, issued by "Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir, Gali Teliwara, Delhi6", merely reflects that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/ annually for sewing the cloths of the diety. The said certificate does not reflect that the deceased was employed by the said "Shri Vaish Beesa Aggarwal Panchayat Mandir, Gali Teliwara, Delhi6" as a regular employee. In totality, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim that the deceased was employed anywhere on a regular basis and was earning a steady income. In these facts and circumstances, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the monthly income of deceased has to be assessed on a notional basis.
19. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to observations made by the Hon'ble Sureme Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:51:34 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 21/34Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2624/2020, decided on 18/06/2020 which have been relied upon in a subsequent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 1920 of 2021, decided on 05/01/2021. It is clarified at the very outset that the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti (supra) are not applicable to the present case as the present petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the deceased was gainfully employed at the time of her death. In Rajendra Singh and Anr. (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has assumed the notional income of the victim of a fatal road accident dated 25.12.2012, who was a housewife, as Rs. 5,000/ per month at the time of death. Since the present accident occurred on 30.11.2014, therefore, it would not be inappropriate to assume the notional income of the deceased (in the present case) to be Rs. 6,000/ per month in view of the gap of almost 02 years in the present accident and the accident referred to in Rajendra Singh (supra). During the course of inquiry, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of her death. The petitioners have placed on record the Aadhar Card of deceased as Ex. PW1/3 which reflects the year of birth of deceased as 1975. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assume that the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of her death. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:51:47 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 22/34been 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 '15' is held applicable.
20. Irrespective of the above, a deduction of 1/3 rd has to be made towards personal expenses of the deceased. Apart from the above, the deceased would also be entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of her notional income towards future prospects. In addition, a sum of Rs.
40,000/ each is payable to all the petitioners on account of spousal and parental consortium as the case may be and a sum of Rs. 15,000/ under the head of funeral expenses . The total compensation payable to the petitioners would be : Rs. 11,43,000/ [(Rs. 6,000/ X 140/100 X 2/3 X 15 X 12) plus Rs. 1,20,000/ (consortium) plus Rs. 15,000/ (funeral expenses)].
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
21. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 11,43,000/ (Rup ees Eleven Lakhs Forty Three Thousand only) (Rs. 10,08,000/ + Rs. 40, 000/ + Rs. 40,000/ + Rs. 40,000/ + Rs. 15,000/), along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that t he amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and c alculations of compensation.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:51:54 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 23/34 RELEASE
22. On 17.03.2021, statements of petitioners no. 1 to 3 qua financial needs and requirements were recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per the statements of petitioners, their household expenditures are Rs. 40,000/ per month, Rs. 20,000/ per month and Rs. 15,000/ per month respectively. Photocopies of the passbooks of the bank accounts of the petitioners maintained Indian Bank, Branch Kashmere Gate, Delhi were also placed on record at that time. Photocopies of Aadhar Cards and PAN Cards were also placed on record by the petitioners, apart from two photographs of the petitioners.
22.1 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioners no. 2 & 3 are awarded a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/ each (Rs. Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only each) 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 69 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable to each of them in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 69 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the petitioner no. 2 bearing A/c no.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:52:01 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 24/34 6858633263, Indian Bank, Branch Kashmere Gate, Delhi; IFSC :
IDIB00K029 and A/c no. of petitioner no. 3 :6858625344, Indian Bank, Branch Kashmere Gate, Delhi; IFSC : IDIB00K029 respectively. The remaining amount of Rs. 82,600/- each (Rs. Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Only each) (i.e. 10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioners no.2 and 3.
22.2 The petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and the said amount be released in his bank account i.e. A/C no.
6858541713, Indian Bank, Branch Kashmere Gate, Delhi; IFSC :
IDIB00K029.
22.3 However, the concerned bank(s) shall permit the petitioners to withdraw money from their above savings bank accounts by means of withdrawal forms or biometric authentication. The above disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from her above share. The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of the petitioners i.e. the above account
(s) of the petitioners shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account
(s).
22.4 The original fixed deposits be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:52:09 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 25/34 22.5 The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of the petitioners. No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
23. R1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R2 being the owner of the said vehicle are liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. Both R1 & R2 are directed to deposit award amount with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, they shall be liable to pay future interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond said 30 days. Respondents shall inform the claimants as well as their counsel about the deposit of award amounts through Registered Posts under intimation to this tribunal.
24. A copy of this award be given to all the parties free of cost.
25. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2021.10.26 16:52:15 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 26/34
26. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 26/11/2021.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26
16:52:22
+0530
Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN)
On this 26th day of October, 2021 Judge, MACT02 (CENTRAL)
Delhi/26/10/2021
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 27/34
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEAT H CASES
1. Date of accident. : 30.11.2014
2. Name of the deceased : Mamta Gupta
3. Age of the deceased. : 39 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased.:
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 6,000/ per month (notional income).
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: S. Name Age Relation No.
(i) Manoj Kumar Gupta 52 Years Husband of the deceased Harsh Gupta
(ii) 26 Years Son of the deceased Prateek Gupta
(iii) 22 Years Do Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.10.26 16:52:34 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 28/34 Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.6,000/ per month (notional income)
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40% future prospects granted in this case.
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/3rd deduction has been done deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 5,600/ dependency[(A+B)C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 67,200/ (Dx12) (Rs. 5,600/ x 12) Digitally signed
12. Multiplier(E) '15' by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26 16:52:43 +0530 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 29/34
13. Total loss of dependency Rs. 10,08,000/ (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) ---
15. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,20,000 (Rs. 40,000/ X consortium(I) 3)
16. Compensation for loss of estate(J)
17. Compensation towards Rs. 15,000/ funeral expenses(K)
18.
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 11,43,000/
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
19. Digitally signed
RATE OF INTEREST 6% by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26
16:52:50
+0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 30/34
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up to the date Rs. 4,57,200/
of award
21.
Total amount including Rs. 16,00,200/
interest
22.
Award amount released P1 : Rs. 55,000/ (Rs.
40,000/ as spousal
consortium + Rs. 15,000/ as
funeral expenses).
P2 : Rs. 82,600/ (10% of the
awarded amount).
P3 : Rs. 82,600/ (10% of the
awarded amount).
23. Digitally
Award amount kept in FDRs As per award
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26
16:53:03
+0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 31/34
24.
Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the
petitioner (s)
25.
Next date for compliance of 26/11/2021
the award
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 26/10/2021.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions Digitally signed by to put up the same on 26/11/2021. LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26 16:53:19 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central 02) Delhi /26/10/2021 MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 32/34 MACT NO. 56529/16 26/10/2021 File taken up through Video Conferencing in terms of the Circular No. 1377/30733-933/DJ/(HQ)/Covid lockdown/ Physical Courts Roster/ 2021, Dated 30/09/2021 issued by Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs), Delhi.
Present: None.
On 29.11.2019, matter was fixed for addressing oral final arguments. Also directions were passed on 12.11.2020 by this Tribunal whereby all the parties were directed to file their written submissions.
However, till date, none of the parties have come forward to address oral arguments nor have they filed their written submissions. Accordingly, the matter shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record.
Put up at 4 pm for orders. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26
16:53:27
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O.MACT(Central02)
Delhi /26/10/2021
At 4:00 pm. Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Present: None. LOVLEEN Date:
2021.10.26
16:53:38 +0530
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 33/34
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stand s disposed of.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolita n Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED C LAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 26/11/2021. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.10.26
16:53:49
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O.MACT(Central02)
Delhi /26/10/2021
MACT No. 56529/16 Manoj Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand Raigar & Anr. Page No. 34/34