Delhi District Court
Lr' Of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 1 Of 16 on 25 April, 2018
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL , PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 5070516
MACT PETITION No. : 51/15
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010010402015
1. Sh. Babu Lal
(father of deceased Kusum)
.....Petitioner No.1.
2. Smt. Leelawati
(mother of deceased )
......Petitioner No.2.
Both R/o H. No. O41, 40 Foota Road, Prem NagarII, Near Nag
Mandir, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
...... Petitioners.
Versus
1. Sh. Ramesh Chaudhary S/o Jhagru Chaudhary
R/o VPO Vibhuti Pur, Samsati Pur, Bihar
.... (Driver /R1)
2. Sh. Naveen Kumar
R/o H. No. 39, VPO Mundka, Delhi.
.... (Owner /R2)
3. M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance co Ltd.
FAI Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area,
Delhi.
......... (Insurance/R3)
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.03.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 20.04.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2018
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 1 of16
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 2 of 16
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 CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 09.09.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.03.2015
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 09.03.2015
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate record.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 19.03.2015
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 09.03.2015
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 19.03.2015
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 09.03.15
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 2 of16
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 3 of 16
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer N/A as insurance co.
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) filed a reply and not
a legal offer.
18. Date of the Award 25.04.2018
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 25.01.2018
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 06.04.2018
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
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Babu Lal savings
IFSC Code (Clause 27) bank a/c no.
671302010019192
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 3 of16
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 4 of 16
with Union Bank of
India, Kirari Suleman
Nagar, Delhi &
Petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Lilawati savings bank
a/c no.
6577000100179034
with PNB, Kirari
Branch, Delhi.
IFSC :UBIN0567132
IFSC: PUNB0657700
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. (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. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 19.03.2015 with reference to FIR No.50/17 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Sultanpuri and subsequent charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC filed in respect of death of Ms. Kusum d/o Sh. Babu Lal, aged about 16 years. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 19.03.2015 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 09.09.2014 Ms. Kusum (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') along with her mother Smt. Leelawati who was suffering from high fever and Sh. Manish were going on motorcycle no. DL4SBH3092 which was being driven by Sh. Manish. At about 1:00 pm, when they reached Shani Bazar Road Sultanpuri, Delhi, a canter bearing registration no. DL1LR9699 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 4 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 5 of 16 manner hit the motorcycle from right side on which deceased was a pillion rider. Due to said impact they all along with motorcycle fell down on the road and deceased became unconscious. Smt. Leelawati and Manish took the deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and from there deceased was referred to Safdarjung hospital where she died during her treatment. It is stated that deceased was aged about 17 years at the time of accident.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi vide PMR No. 1552/14.
3. R1/ Ramesh Chaudhary who is the driver and Sh. Naveen Kumar/R2 owner of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement jointly wherein they have stated that the accident was not caused at the instance or due to the negligence of R1. They have further stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was insured with insurance co.
4. R3/ Iffco Tokio General Insurance co. Ltd filed its written statement and submitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 85223767 w.e.f 26.09.13 to 25.09.2014 in the name of Sh. Naveen Kumar Vats/R2 i.e. covering the date of accident dated 09.09.2014. It has further been stated that three persons including the deceased were traveling on motorcycle in violation of terms and condition of insurance policy and deceased herself was responsible for the accident as she took the risk of traveling on motorcycle, in triple riding.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 08.10.2016 : (1) Whether on 09.09.2014 at about 1:00 pm, at F1 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi, one canter bearing registration no. DL1LR9699, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Ramesh Chaudhary hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SBH3092 and caused the death of Kusum? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 5 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 6 of 16 amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. The petitioners in support of their case have examined only Smt. Leelawati (mother of deceased/petitioner no.1) as PW1.
On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their respective case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsels for parties. 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.
Smt. Leelawati (petitioner no. 2) has examined herself as PW1. She has filed and proved her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. She has proved the copy of her aadhar card as Ex. PW1/1 and entire DAR as Ex. PW1/2.
PW1 has deposed that on 09.09.2014 she was suffering from high fever, she was being taken for treatment and she along with her daughter (deceased) and Sh. Manish were going on motorcycle no. DL4SBH3092 which was being driven by Sh. Manish. She deposed that at about 1:00 pm, when they reached Shani Bazar Road Sultanpuri, Delhi a canter bearing registration no. DL1LR9699 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle from right side due to which they all along with motorcycle fell down on the road and deceased became unconscious. She deposed that she and Manish took the deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and from there deceased was referred to Safdarjung hospital where she died during her treatment.
She was cross examined by ld counsel for R1/driver and R2/owner wherein she deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it at a very fast speed and in rash and negligent manner.
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 6 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 7 of 16 She was also cross examined by ld counsel for R3/Insurance co. where she inter alia deposed that offending vehicle was a truck and that she had seen the offending vehicle from 1520 yards before the accident. She deposed that she did not remember the colour of the offending vehicle. She deposed that they were three persons on the motorcycle at the time of accident and that Manish was driving the motorcycle at that time. She denied the suggestion that as Manish was driving motorcycle in tripling so he was solely responsible for the accident or that he was driving the motorcycle in a very high speed or in gross violation of provisions of Motor vehicle Act/rules. She has denied the suggestion that the said offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case or that the motorcycle got disbalanced due to triple riding or that due to which the deceased and she suffered injuries.
Nothing has come on record during the cross examination of PW1 to discredit her version.
The copy of criminal case record would show that the case FIR No. 982/14 u/s 279/337 IPC PS Sultanpuri was registered. The charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle. The postmortem report of deceased is on record which would show that the cause of death is due to cerebral damage as a result of injury to head, consequent upon blunt force/surface impact.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet u/s 279/304A IPC against R1 can also be relied upon to show that the case accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW1 would also show that the deceased expired due to injuries sustained after the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed hit the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion rider.
In the said circumstances, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 7 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 8 of 16 and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion rider.
Ld counsel for insurance co/R3 has argued that deceased also contributed to the accident as she took the risk of sitting on a motorcycle on which triple riding was being done.
The ld counsel for petitioners referred to judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Darwan Singh Aswal vs The United India Insurance Company Ltd., MAC.APP.97/2012 date of decision 01.11.2012 and argued that there is no presumption that there would always be negligence on the part of two wheeler driver if three persons are riding on a two wheeler and negligence has to be established as a fact. He further argued that deceased herself was not driving the two wheeler and thus even if there was negligence on the part of two wheeler driver, it was case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence and the claim petition was maintainable against either of the tort feasors.
The said judgment of Darwan Singh Aswal (Supra) is squarely application on the facts of the present case. As held in that case, the appropriate punishment is provided for triple riding on a two wheeler under section 128 r/w section 177 of M.V. Act, however, there is no presumption that there would always be negligence on the part of two wheeler driver if three persons are riding on it and that the negligence has to be established as a fact. Further, the manner of the accident has not been disputed in the cross examination of PW1 to the effect that the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of the deceased from right side due to which they fell down on the road. It is pertinent to note that R3 has preferred not to lead any evidence in that regard. Further, as mentioned in the said case, it is also noteworthy that the deceased was not driving the two wheeler, thus, even if, there was negligence on the part of two wheeler driver, it would maximum be a case of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. In the said circumstances and record, the arguments of ld counsel for R3/insurance co. regarding any LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 8 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 9 of 16 contributory negligence cannot be sustained.
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.
PW1 has deposed that deceased Ms. Kusum was aged about 17 years old at the time of accident, was working in a beauty parlor and was earning Rs. 8000/ per month but during cross examination as conducted by insurance co/R3, she has clearly admitted that she did not have any document regarding the earning of deceased. Therefore, petitioners have failed to prove the income of deceased.
Further, during arguments ld counsel for insurance co. submitted that as deceased was a minor of the age of about 17 years (as per postmortem report her age was about 16 years and as per copy of aadhar card her date of birth was 01.01.1998 i.e. she was aged about 16 years 8 months at the time of accident) and was not earning anything.
As discussed above, the age of deceased is taken as 16 years & 8 months at the relevant time and hence, the multiplier of '18' is applicable in the case in hand as per judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram, MAC. APP 554/10, date of decision 13.05.16.
It may also be discussed that at the relevant time, since the deceased was aged about 16 years, hence her notional income is taken as Rs. 15,000/ in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram (Supra).
10. Calculation: The cause of action arose on date of accident i.e. 09.09.2014. Thus, CII for the financial year 201415 i.e. 1024 would be invoked. The inflation corrected income would thus be calculated as under: LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 9 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 10 of 16 Rs. 15,000xA/Base Year ("A" represents Cost Inflation Index i.e CII for the financial year which the cause of action arose and the figure of 331 represents the CII for the base year ) Rs. 15,000/x1024/331= 46404/, rounded off to Rs. 46,410/ Thus, the Loss to Estate after deducting 1/3rd of income of deceased towards her personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of '18', it comes to Rs.5,56,920/ (Rs. 46,410/x2/3x18) and further, adding the same amount towards composite non pecuniary damages, the total compensation would come to Rs. 11,13,840/ (5,56,920/x2) as per the judgment in the case of Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram (Supra).
11. In view of above, the over all compensation amount thus comes to Rs.11,13,840/ Sl. No Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
1. Loss to estate Rs. 5,56,920/
2. Total Compensation Rs. 11,13,840/ (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 19.03.2015 till realisation of the compensation amount. 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.
12. Liability In the case in hand, the Iffco Tokio General Insurance company/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 10 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 11 of 16 the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
13. 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 company/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 11,13,840/ 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 of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance co 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
14. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 27 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 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 11 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 12 of 16 realization, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ be given to Sh. Babu Lal who is father of deceased out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to him in his savings bank a/c no.671302010019192 with Union Bank of India, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept 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.
Further, remaining amount be given to Smt. Lilawati (who is mother of deceased ) out of which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ be released to her in her savings bank a/c no.6577000100179034 with PNB, Kirari Branch, Delhi i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in 72 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 72 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 directions:
(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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 12 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 13 of 16 allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(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.
15. Relief As discussed above, R3/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 11,13,840/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19.03.2015 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 co 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 respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
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 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 13 of16 LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 14 of 16 12.12.2014.
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 statement of ld counsel for all petitioners was also recorded wherein he had stated that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
16. 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.
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 25th April 2018 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 14 of16
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 15 of 16
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 09.09.2014
2. Name of deceased: Kusum
3. Age of the deceased: 16 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: As per judgment of Chetan Malhotra (Supra).
5. Income of the deceased: As per judgment of Chetan Malhotra (Supra).
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Leelawati 47 years mother
(ii) Sh. Babu Lal 48 years father
(iii)
(iv)
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A)
8. AddFuture Prospects (B)
9. LessPersonal expenses of the
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE
= F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of
consortium (I)
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 15 of16
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 16 of 16
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 11,13,840
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 11,13,840/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 3,09,088/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 14,22,928/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,50,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 11,72,928/
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 05.06.2018.
award. (Clause 31) (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
25.04.2018
LR' of Kusum vs Ramesh Chaudhary Page 16 of16