Delhi District Court
Savita Devi & Ors. vs . Naushad & Ors. on 24 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SAVITA DEVI & ORS. VS. NAUSHAD & ORS.
MACP NO. 593/16
1. Smt. Savita Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ravindra Singh
2. Sh. Vikas Kundu
S/o Late Sh. Ravindra Singh
3. Sh. Vinit Kundu
S/o Late Sh. Ravindra Singh
4. Smt. Daryayi
W/o Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh
All R/o H. No. 149, Village & Post Office Hewa,
Teh Baraut, District Baghpat, U.P.-250617.
(Petitioner no. 3 being minor through his mother/natural guardian
Smt. Savita Devi, petitioner no. 1.)
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Naushad (Driver)
S/o Sh. Jamil,
R/o H. No. 227, Village Kunda Kalan,
P.S. Gangho, Teh Nakur,
District Saharan Pur, U.P.
2nd Address :-
C/o Sh. Amit Tyagi
R/o Village Taj Pur, Teh Samalkha,
District Panipat, Haryana-132103.
2. Sh. Amit Tyagi (Insured)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Tyagi,
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.1 of 30
R/o Village Taj Pur, Teh Samalkha,
District Panipat, Haryana-132103.
3. Sh. Sakir (Superdar)
S/o Sh. Yunus
R/o Village Jamwa, P.S. Sinholi,
District Panipat, Haryana.
4. The National Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Maruti Vertical Div. No. 10, 803-A, 8th Floor, Tower-III,
Konnectus Building, Opp. New Delhi Rly Station,
Bhavbhuti Marg, P.S. IGIA Metro, New Delhi-110002.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 13.10.2016
Date of framing of issues : 09.03.2017 & 30.11.2019
Date of concluding arguments : 17.11.2020
Date of decision : 24.11.2020
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this petition relates to death of one Ravindra Singh in a road accident that took place on 18.07.2016 at around 12.20 PM, on road near Halalpur Chhota Mandir, Near Nahar (canal), Chhaprauli, Baghpat, U.P. between motorcycle of deceased bearing registration No. UP-17K-1645 and the offending Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. HR-60D-5262.
2. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that on the above said date and time of accident, the deceased was driving his above motorcycle and was going from his residence in Village Hewa, Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat, U.P. towards his workplace at Kakore Bijlighar, when his motorcycle was forcefully hit by the offending Swift car. As a result thereof, the deceased fell on road and suffered severe injuries and his motorcycle also got damaged. He was removed to Government hospital, Chhaprauli, Baghpat and was referred from there for some higher centre and then he was taken to Aastha Multi Superspecialty Hospital, Baraut, U.P., where he was declared brought dead. His postmortem MACP No. 593/16 Page no.2 of 30 was conducted on the same day in District Combined Hospital at Baghpat, U.P. It has been alleged that the above accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by R-1 and at the relevant time of accident, the said car was owned by and insured in the name of R-2, possessed and released on superdari in the name of R-3 and insured with R-4 company.
3. One FIR/crime case bearing No. 0237/16 regarding the above accident was registered against R-1 at the local police station Chhaprauli, Baghpat, U.P. for offences under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and a charge- sheet for the above offences in the said case is also stated to have been filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate concerned at Baghpat, U.P.
4. This claim petition was filed by the petitioners before this tribunal on 13.10.2016 and on being issued notices, written statement/replies to the petition have also been filed by all the respondents.
5. R-1 in his written statement/reply to the petition has simply denied the allegations of driving of the said car or causing the said accident. However, he has admitted that his documents and said car with documents were seized by police in the above said case. He has also submitted that he has been got falsely implicated in a case for the above said accident by petitioners in collusion with the local police and he possessed a valid driving license at the relevant time of accident.
6. R-2 in his reply has though also denied the alleged accident between the said car and motorcycle of deceased and further claimed the car to have been falsely implicated in the above said case, but even he has admitted seizure of the said car in a case pertaining to the above accident. He further claimed that he had already sold the car to one Chander Prakash, a resident of Panipat, Haryana through the Auto Dealer Welfare Association, Panipat on 24.04.2016 vide receipt executed by the said Association and the above Chander Prakash had further sold it to one Mohd. Naushad on MACP No. 593/16 Page no.3 of 30 01.05.2016 through the same Association vide another receipt. It was further claimed by him that now the said car stood registered in the name of Sakir, i.e. R-3, and insured with R-4 and hence, liability to pay compensation was of R-3 or R-4 only.
7. R-3 in his reply has also claimed himself to have been falsely implicated in this case. He also denied the allegations of petitioners only in a vague manner while claiming that since on the date of accident, the above car was insured with R-4, he was not liable to pay any compensation. However, there was no denial by him of the allegations made by R-2 that on the date of accident, the above car was being possessed and controlled by him or that it was released on superdari to him.
8. R-4/Insurance Company has though admitted the existence of a valid policy of insurance in respect of offending car on the above date of accident in the name of R-2, but it has claimed that their liability to pay compensation in the present case was only as per terms and conditions of the said policy. It has also specifically pleaded that since admittedly, the offending car stood sold by R-2 prior to the date of accident without getting the policy of insurance transferred, the provisions of Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicle (MV) Act stood violated and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to petitioners in the present case. It has also been pleaded by the Insurance Company that since on the date of accident, the offending car was being possessed and controlled by R-3 and it was also got released on superdari from the court by him, they are not liable in the present case as they have no privity of contract with R-3 or liability to indemnify him as per the above insurance policy.
9. Besides the above, all the respondents in their respective replies have also raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this tribunal on ground that the accident took place in District Baghpat, U.P. and the petitioners are also residents of the same District.
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.4 of 30
10. On 09.03.2017, the Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal has framed the following issues for disposal of claim of the petitioners :-
1. Whether Sh. Ravindra Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 18.07.2016 at about 12.20 PM, on the road near Halal Pur, Chhota Mandir, Near Nahar, Chhaprauli, Baghpat, U.P. caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-60D-5262 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
11. It is necessary to mention here that written statement and reply of R-3 was permitted to be filed on record after framing of issues on the above said date and on the same day, an interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was also awarded to the petitioners and out of this amount, Rs, 40,000/- along with interest were awarded to wife of the deceased, i.e. petitioner no. 1 (P-1) and Rs. 10,000/- were awarded to mother of the deceased, i.e. petitioner no. 4 (P-4) and the said amounts were directed to be released to them.
12. It is also necessary to mention here that vide order dated 30.11.2019, this tribunal has amended/modified the issue no.1 framed on 09.03.2017 as reference of only three respondents was found to have been made in said issue though from the very beginning all four respondents were impleaded in the petition. This was done at a final stage when the matter was fixed for final argument, but since it was done with consent of all the counsels/ parties appearing in the matter and it was also in consonance with pleadings of parties and the above mistake was considered to be a clerical mistake only, no requirement of any further evidence was felt in the case and matter was proceeded with on merits. The amended/modified issue no.1 as framed by this tribunal on 30.11.2019 is as under:-
1. Whether Sh. Ravindra Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 18.07.2016 at about 12.20 PM on the road near Halal Pur, Chhota Mandir, Near Nahar, Chhaprauli, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh MACP No. 593/16 Page no.5 of 30 caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-60D-5262 being driven by respondent no. 1, registered in the name of respondent no.2, alleged to have been purchased and possessed by respondent no.3 and insured with respondent no. 4? OPP.
13. It is further pertinent to mention here that on 30.11.2019, this tribunal has also allowed and disposed off an application moved on behalf of R- 2 seeking permission to lead some further evidence and the proposed evidence in the form of some documents was taken on record as Ex.R2/A (colly) and these documents were directed to be considered as a part of the evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, Sh. Chander Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-3, Sh. J.K. Vashisth, Ld. Counsel for R-2 and Sh. S. Ghosh, Ld. Counsel for R-4/ Insurance Company through video conferencing. I have also carefully perused entire record of the case.
15. Before proceeding further, it is first necessary to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised by all the respondents in their replies/written statements. Admittedly, the accident of this case took place in District Baghpat, U.P. and the petitioners are also residents of same District. However, one of the offices of R-4/Insurance Co. is admittedly situated within the jurisdiction of this tribunal and hence, in view of two separate decisions both dated 31.07.2018 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of Kaila Devi & Ors. Vs. Ankita & Anr., MAC. App. 1017/2017 and Shriram General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Renu Sharma & Ors., MAC. APPs. 993 & 1093 of 2017, which in turn based on law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malti Sardar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors 2016 ACJ 542, the present claim petition is held to be maintainable before this tribunal.
16. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and MACP No. 593/16 Page no.6 of 30 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 M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions 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 etc.
17. The petitioners in support of their case have examined on record total four witnesses and besides P-1 Smt Savita Devi who stepped into the witness box as PW1, the other two witnesses examined on record are PW2 Sh. Lokender, an alleged eye witness, PW3 Sh. Rajiv Kumar and PW4 Ex. Naib Subedar Ramanand. PW3 & P4 are both witnesses from the office of deceased. Since, admittedly, PW1 is not an eye witness and PW3 & PW4 are also witnesses of the records, it is only the testimony of PW2 Sh. Lokender Kumar which matters for determination of the present issue as he has been alleged to be an eye witness of the above accident.
18. PW2 has tendered on record his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex. PW2/A and in the said affidavit, he claimed that on the date of accident, he was driving a Mahindra Pick up vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17A-8566 with passengers namely Sh. Charan Pal, Sh. Jaipal, Sh. Kalu Ram and Sh. Bhim Singh travelling in the said vehicle and he was going towards Baraut via Village Halalpur, when at around 12.20 pm, he had seen the above motorcycle being driven by the deceased Ravindra Kumar being hit by the above offending car driven by R-1 Naushad. He has also stated specifically MACP No. 593/16 Page no.7 of 30 in the above affidavit that the motorcycle of deceased was being driven at a normal speed and it was just going ahead of his Mahindra Pick up and the offending car, on the other hand, came being driven at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without taking necessary precautions and also in violation of traffic rules etc. He further stated in the above affidavit that the offending car came from wrong side of the road and the above accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the said car by R-1 Naushad, who was apprehended and arrested from the spot of accident itself by police and the other persons travelling in Mahindra pick up.
19. Though PW2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondents, but it has been observed that nothing material could be extracted out from him during his such cross examination which can make his presence at the spot of accident or his testimony to be doubtful or unworthy of acceptance. Even during his cross examination, he has maintained that he was a driver by profession and at the relevant time of accident, he used to drive the above Mahindra Pick up owned by himself. He also stated during his cross examination that his statement regarding the above accident was recorded by police on the date of accident itself. He further denied the suggestions given to him by Ld. Counsels to the effect that he was not owing or driving the above Mahindra Pick up on the date of accident; he did not witness the above accident; the above accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car or that R-1 was not arrested in his presence.
20. Further, though it has come on record during his cross examination that the above Mahindra Pick up vehicle is good carriage vehicle and he was carrying four passengers in same at the relevant time of accident, i.e. two sitting with him in cabin and two travelling behind in the body, and his above act was in violation of the MV Act and Rules, but this fact has got no relevancy to the present claim for compensation made by the petitioners. As far as presence of this witness at the relevant time of accident is concerned, the same stands MACP No. 593/16 Page no.8 of 30 duly substantiated from records of the above criminal case registered about this accident, the certified copies of which have been tendered on record by the petitioners as Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7, as it has been observed that the above FIR/criminal case was registered regarding this accident on the basis of a written complaint made by this witness only. Hence, simply because he was a resident of the same village to which deceased belonged, his testimony cannot be discarded and rather, he being a witness from the same area and driving a commercial vehicle in the same vicinity is held to be a natural eye witness of the accident. Thus, there is no ground or reason made out before this tribunal to disbelieve or discard the testimony of this witness made about the manner of accident, which is otherwise found to be trustworthy and inspiring confidence.
21. Moreover, as already discussed, the oral testimony of this witness is found duly substantiated by the attested/certified copies of the criminal case record tendered in evidence as Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7, which not only include a copy of FIR and charge-sheet but also a copy of site plan of place of accident, written complaint/application given by PW2 to police regarding the above accident, order of the Ld. JMIC concerned for release of offending car on superdari, postmortem report of deceased and mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles involved in accident etc. Even otherwise, the very fact that R- 1 stands already charge-sheeted in the above criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC for causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased Ravindra Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the above said vehicle is in itself a strong circumstance to corroborate the case of petitioners.
22. Apart from above, R-1 was the best witness who could have challenged or controverted the testimony of above witness and other evidence regarding the manner of accident, but as already discussed above, he has not come forward to contest this inquiry properly and to depose that the above accident did not take place due to his rash and negligent driving of the MACP No. 593/16 Page no.9 of 30 offending car or in the manner as stated by PW2 or that it took place due to fault of deceased himself. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
23. Thus, in view of the above factual and legal discussion, it is held that the oral evidence led on record by petitioners is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved that the above accident resulting into fatal injuries to deceased Ravindra Singh was caused due to rash and negligent act of R-1 in driving the above offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-60D-5262, which stood insured with R-4.
24. Now coming to ownership of the above offending car, as already discussed above, the documents Ex.R2/A (colly) were permitted to be brought on record as a part of the evidence vide order dated 30.11.2019 of this tribunal. Prior to this, the pleadings of parties suggested that though the above car stood registered in name of R-2 Amit Tyagi at the time of accident, but he sold it to one Chander Prakash and Chander Prakash further sold it to R-1 Naushad prior to the date of accident and on the date of accident, the car stood registered in name of R-3 Sakir. Photocopies of some receipts executed regarding the first two sales through some broker on the letter head of Auto Dealer Welfare Association, Panipat were also brought on record, though no evidence has been subsequently led regarding these receipts.
25. However, the documents Ex.R2/A (colly) consist of, inter-alia, a writing given by the concerned transport/ licencing authority Samalkha and the above writing is to the effect that as per records of the said authority, the offending car was registered in name of R-2 Amit Tyagi on 19.12.2012 and on 03.08.2016, the same came to be registered in name of R-3 Sakir. Copy of one RC issued in name of Sakir in smart card form on 03.08.2016 is also a part of the said documents and it corroborates the contents of above writing regarding MACP No. 593/16 Page no.10 of 30 transfer of ownership of said vehicle in name of R-3 Sakir w.e.f. 03.08.2016. Further, the computerized vehicle details of above car are also a part of the above documents and as per same, the offending car stood further sold by R-3 Sakir to one Murseeda and ownership of vehicle transferred to Murseeda on 23.04.2019. It also shows that name of R-3 Sakir as previous owner of the said vehicle. Thus, it becomes crystal clear from these documents that as on the date of accident, i.e. 18.07.2016, the above car stood registered in name of R-2 Amit Tyagi till it was transferred in the name of R-3 Sakir on 03.08.2016. However, as also discussed above, there is no denial on part of R-1 or R-3 of claim of R-2 Amit Tyagi that as on the date of accident, the above car was being possessed and controlled by R-3 Sakir and R-3 Sakir has also got it released on superdari from the court of Ld. JMIC concerned and the order of Ld. JMIC concerned to this effect has also been brought on record as Ex.C4, though this order of Ld. JMIC is found to be of date 05.09.2016, i.e. after transfer of ownership of said vehicle from R-2 Amit Tyagi in the name of R-3 Sakir on 03.08.2016. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
26. ISSUE NO. 2As the rashness and negligence on part of driver of the above offending vehicle has been satisfactorily proved, 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 The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) Loss of dependency Petitioner/PW1 in her affidavit Ex.PW1/A has claimed that her husband was aged around 43 years at the time of accident and she has also MACP No. 593/16 Page no.11 of 30 tendered on record, inter-alia, a copy of matriculation certificate, aadhar card and driving licence (DL) of her deceased husband as Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/11 respectively. It is observed that in all these documents, the date of birth of deceased Ravindra Singh is found stated as 22.11.1972 and going by these documents, the age of deceased as on the date of accident, i.e. 18.07.2016, comes to 43 years and around 8 months. Hence, in view of 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 case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '14' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to petitioners in respect of death of deceased Sh. Ravindra Singh.
Coming to salary or earnings of deceased at the time of accident, petitioner/PW1 in her above affidavit has claimed that her husband was an Ex- Serviceman having being retired from Rajputana Rifles Regiment and he was drawing a pension of Rs.15,955/- pm at that time, which after implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report would have been increased to around Rs.26,000/- pm. She has also claimed in the said affidavit that besides the above pension amount, her husband was also getting a salary of Rs.11,864.30 pm from his job of a Sub-Station Operator at Kakore Bijlighar, Near Chhaprauli, Baghpat, U.P. To substantiate her above claims, she also tendered through said affidavit a copy of pay slip of her husband in respect of his above job as Ex.PW1/7, a copy of passbook of their joint saving bank account as Ex.PW1/8 and a copy of Ex-Serviceman identity card of her husband as Ex.PW1/9. However, it has been observed that copy of pay slip of deceased exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 in the said affidavit was de-exhibited and marked as Mark A during the course of recording of testimony of PW1 for want of production of original thereof.
Further, to substantiate their above claims, the petitioners are also MACP No. 593/16 Page no.12 of 30 found to have examined on record PW3 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Auditor, DPDO-Meerut, U.P. and PW4 Ex. Naib Subedar Ramanand, UP Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Meerut, U.P. PW3 Sh. Rajiv Kumar is found to be a witness from the office of Indian Army, i.e. previous employer of deceased, and as per this witness, the deceased was discharged from Army and his pension was started w.e.f. 01.07.2009. He also placed on record an attested copy of pension pay order of deceased as Ex.PW3/2 to corroborate his above depositions. Further, this witness has also stated on record that at the relevant time of accident, the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.15,955/- pm as per the documents brought in evidence by him as Ex.PW3/3 and after implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report, his pension on the date of accident, i.e. 18.07.2016, was Rs.19,050/- pm and the relevant document tendered on record in this regard has been exhibited by him as Ex.PW3/4. Thus, it is clear from the oral depositions made by this witness and the documents brought in evidence by him that as on the day of accident, the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.15,955/- and this fact is also found substantiated from the entries reflected in passbook of saving bank account of deceased Ex.PW1/8, which he jointly held with her wife i.e. P-1/PW1 Savita Devi in Punjab National Bank, Chhaprauli Branch, District Baghpat, U.P. and after implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report, the pension of deceased was enhanced from Rs.15,955/- to Rs.19,050/- pm. PW4 Ex. Naib Subedar Ramanand is an employee of U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. and as per this witness, the deceased was working as Technical Grade II (TG-II) w.e.f. 01.12.2014 and was deputed to work at Chhaprauli, 132 KV, Bijli Ghar. He also tendered on record a copy of appointment letter of deceased to this effect as Ex.PW4/A and further stated that from 24.06.2016, the deceased was deputed to work at 33/11, KV Kakor Kala, Baraut, U.P. and one more appointment letter of deceased to this effect was tendered in evidence by him as Ex.PW4/B. He also stated on record that MACP No. 593/16 Page no.13 of 30 the appointment of deceased was on contract basis and he was eligible for appointment there till he attained the age of 60 years. He further stated that the deceased lastly worked with them till 17.07.2016 as he died in a road accident on 18.07.2016. He also stated in clear and specific terms that the gross salary of deceased from this job was Rs.11,864.30 pm. He further tendered in evidence copies of attendance sheet and salary sheet of deceased for the month of July, 2016 as Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively, besides copies of attendance and salary sheets for the month of June, 2016 as Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F respectively and for the month of April, 2015 as Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H respectively. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence brought on record through this witness, the petitioners have duly substantiated their claims regarding re-employment of deceased with U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. and his salary being Rs.11,864.30 pm at the relevant time of accident.
Hence, it can be seen that the evidence led on record shows that the total amount of earnings of deceased at the relevant time of accident was Rs.27,819.30 pm (Rs.15,955 + 11,864.30), though after implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report his total earnings come to Rs. 30,914.30 pm (Rs.19,050 + 11,864.30).
It has also come on record during the examination of P-1/PW1 as well as PW3 that the above pension which the deceased was getting as an Ex- Serviceman has not come to an end on his death and the same now stands converted to a family pension. During cross examination of P-1/PW1 conducted on 03.08.2017, she deposed that they were presently getting a pension of Rs.19,000/- pm, but according of PW3 Sh. Rajiv Kumar, who was also examined on 03.08.2017, the petitioner Smt. Savita Devi was presently getting a family pension of Rs.19,165/- pm. PW3 has also brought in evidence a document in this regard as Ex.PW3/6, though he further stated that had the deceased not died in accident, he would have got a pension of Rs.19,441/- as on today. Thus, it is observed from the testimony of this witness that even after MACP No. 593/16 Page no.14 of 30 implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report, there was only a marginal difference between the amounts of pension, i.e. the amount which the deceased himself would have got as pension in case he was alive today and which his wife/family was presently getting. But this appears to be only after implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report.
In view of the above evidence brought by petitioners themselves through PW3, it is the contention of Ld. Counsel for R-4/Insurance Co. that the earnings of deceased in this case can at the most be taken equivalent to the difference between amount of pension which the deceased himself was getting and which his wife/family was presently getting, i.e. Rs.276/- pm only (Rs.19,441 - 19,165) plus the salary amount of Rs.11,864.30, whereas it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that it is the gross amount of pension drawn by deceased at the time of accident and his salary at the time of accident, which is to be taken as his earnings at that time and the petitioners are entitled to be compensated on account of loss of dependency on this gross amount.
Since 7th Pay Commission Report was implemented in month of July, 2016, w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and accident also took place in the month of July itself, the petitioners are entitled to benefit of 7th Pay Commission Report in view of the law laid in cases of ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. Darshna, 2009 LawSuit (Del) 226; Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. Kamlesh & Ors. in MAC Appl. No.3/2011 decided on 22.12.2011; Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013, LawSuit (SC) 497; and Oriental Ins. Co. Vs. Usha Devi & Ors., 2015 LawSuit (Del) 1988 and earnings of deceased from pension at the time of accident are being taken as Rs.19,050/- and the gross earnings of deceased from pension and re-employment salary come to Rs.30,194.30 (Rs.19,050 + 11,864.30). However, no specific evidence on record has come on record to show as to what was the family pension amount sanctioned by the Army authorities immediately after the death of deceased in the above accident MACP No. 593/16 Page no.15 of 30 on 18.07.2016. Under the general service rules, it is 50% of the pension amount drawn by the deceased himself. Moreover, both Ld. Counsels for petitioners as well as Insurance Co. have also made submissions to this effect during the course of arguments and Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgments dated 21.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in MAC App. No 418/2010 titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Adesh Sharma & Ors. and MAC App. No. 312/2011 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors. respectively and Ld. Counsel for Insurance Co. has also relied upon judgments dated 04.02.2015 and 27.05.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court in MAC App. No. 694/2013 titled Roshni Devi & Ors. Vs. Takdeer Singh & Ors. and MAC App. No. 620/2014 titled Smt. Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs. Sh. Tejpal & Ors. respectively. These judgments are also to the effect that 50% of the pension amount drawn by a deceased and his present earnings, if any, are to be taken as his earnings for the purposes of calculations of loss of dependency. Therefore, the monthly earnings of deceased are being taken as Rs.21,389/- rounded off (50% of Rs.19,050 + Rs.11,864.30) and thus, his annual earnings come to Rs.2,56,668/-. As per the tax slabs of relevant financial year, the above annual earnings of deceased were not taxable.
This claim petition has been filed by total four petitioners and besides the wife of deceased impleaded as P-1, P-2 and P-3 are their sons and P-4 is mother of deceased. The age of P-2 and P-3 as per identity documents tendered on record by P-1/PW1 as Ex. PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 respectively was 18 years and around 10 months & 17 years and around 8 months respectively at the time of accident. During her cross examination conducted on 03.08.2017, P-1/PW1 has stated that P-2 had applied for admission in B.A. 1st year and P-3 was studying in 12th standard. Since P-2 was not gainfully employed and P-3 was still a minor at the time of death of their father, they both are to be considered as dependents upon their father at the time of accident, besides P-1 MACP No. 593/16 Page no.16 of 30 and P-4 in view of the law already discussed. Therefore, 1/4 th of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
As per PW4, the re-employment of deceased with U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. was on contract basis. Hence, the petitioners are held entitled to increased of 25% of the above amount of earnings towards future prospects in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years at the time of accident.
Thus, the loss of dependency qua deceased in the present case comes to Rs.33,68,767/- (rounded off) (Rs.2,56,668 X 3/4 X 125/100 X 14) and the said amount is awardable to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. a total amount of Rs.30,000/- under both these heads. Though in light of subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, which was also consistently followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in many cases including the cases of Sangram Pal & Ors. vs. Furkan Ansari & Ors, (2019) 08 DEL CK 0174 decided on 21.08.2019 and in MACA No.747/2019 titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Kaur & Ors. decided on 27.08.2019, each of the petitioners were entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the head of 'loss of consortium' and Rs.50,000/- towards the head 'loss of love and affection', but now in view of the recent Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 in case United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020 and the Division Bench judgment dated 07.09.2020 in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. MACP No. 593/16 Page no.17 of 30 Somwati & Ors. (2020) 09 SC CK 0012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection' cannot be separately granted. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', besides the above amounts of Rs.15,000/- each granted under the general and conventional heads towards 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
Further, it has also been noticed that the Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017 and it was also laid down by their Lordships in the said case that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amounts awarded under the conventional heads of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'.
Hence, the petitioners are being awarded a total sum of Rs.2,09,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000) + (40,000 X 4 + 10% of 40,000 X
4)] under this head.
27. ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF The petitioners are thus held entitled to a sum of Rs. 35,77,767/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Seven only) (Rs. 33,68,767 + 2,09,000/-) along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award granted by this tribunal vide order dated 09.03.2017 and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
28. APPORTIONMENT Out of awarded amount of compensation, 50% is being given to P- 1, 15% each is being given to P-2 & P-3 and remaining 20% is being given to P-4.
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.18 of 30 29. RELEASE
Out of share of P-1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 200 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 her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 50411933438 being maintained with Allahabad Bank, B.C. Hewa, Chhaprauli, U.P. having IFSC Code No. ALLA0211194 and the remaining 10% amount, after deducting the amount of interim award with proportionate interest, is also directed to be released into her above said account.
Out of shares of P-2 & P-3, 90% amount of their shares is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 65 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 65 months in succession with cumulative interest, as per the above scheme. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account, i.e. account bearing no. 0578000100291065 of P-2 being maintained at Punjab National Bank, Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, UP having IFSC Code No. PUNB0057800 and account bearing no. 59142455063 of P-3 being maintained with Allahabad Bank, B.C. Hewa, Chhaprauli, U.P. having IFSC Code No. ALLA0211194. The remaining 10% amount of their shares is also directed to be released into their above said accounts.
Keeping in view age of P-4, out of her share, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 24 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 24 months in succession as per above scheme. The amount of MACP No. 593/16 Page no.19 of 30 FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 351700101000836 being maintained at Corporation Bank, 3517 Chhaproli, Patti Bhawala, Main Road, Chhaprauli having IFSC Code No. CORP0003517 and the remaining 50% amount, after deducting the amount of interim award with proportionate interest, is also directed to be released into her above said account.
Petitioners/claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw and utilize the amounts released in their above accounts through withdrawal forms or biometric authentication.
To facilitate deposits in the above scheme and disbursement of the awarded amount, the petitioners shall also open savings bank accounts in the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in their names, if not opened earlier.
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 their above shares.
The banks shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of the petitioners i.e. the above account (s) of the petitioners shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
The original fixed deposits be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners.
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 pre-mature discharge be MACP No. 593/16 Page no.20 of 30 allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
Petitioners have produced before this tribunal their original passbooks of the above bank accounts with requisite endorsements regarding non-issuance of ATM cards/cheque books in their said accounts as well as copies of their Aadhar cards and PAN cards. The concerned banks shall permit the petitioners to withdraw money from their savings bank accounts by means of withdrawal forms or biometric authentication. The Bank Managers shall also ensure that all the terms and conditions contained in Form-VIII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as amended and implemented vide the above order dated 07.12.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the above said matter, are complied with.
30. LIABILITY As already discussed, the admitted position which comes through pleadings of parties and evidence led on record in respect of ownership of offending vehicle is that as on the date of accident, the above vehicle stood registered in name of R-2 Amit Tyagi and it was also insured with R-4 in his name. However, it has also come on record that R-2 Amit Tyagi had already sold it to some other person and it is ultimately claimed to have been purchased by R-3 Sakir and it was in his possession and control on the date of accident. Though R-1 Naushad is also claimed to be a subsequent purchaser of offending vehicle prior to R-3 Sakir, but at the time of accident he was driving it for and on behalf of R-3 Sakir. The evidence also reflects that ownership of offending vehicle was formally transferred in name of R-3 Sakir only after the accident, i.e. on 03.08.2016, where as the accident took place on 18.07.2016.
It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for R-1 & R-3 that in view of Full Court decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors., 2018 AIR (SC) 983, it is the liability of R-2 only or insurer of said vehicle to pay compensation to petitioners in the present case as it has been held by their Lordships in the above case that owner of a vehicle only MACP No. 593/16 Page no.21 of 30 means the 'registered owner'. It is also his submission that being a subsequent purchaser or possessor of the vehicle, no liability can be fastened upon R-3 in view of the above judgment. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for R-2 has argued that since R-2 has already sold the vehicle and he was not in possession and control of the said vehicle, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened upon R-2 and the same is of R-3, besides the other respondents. He has also specifically argued that even if he is held liable to pay compensation as registered owner of offending vehicle, R-4 is liable to pay it as the vehicle was duly insured with them on the day of accident.
As has already been discussed, R-4 has alleged violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy of offending vehicle and Ld. Counsel representing it has also argued for their exoneration or a right of recovery of the awarded amount on account of violation of provisions contained in Section 157 (2) of the M.V. Act and the terms and conditions of said policy. They have also raised the issue of privity of contract between the Insurance Co. and R-3 at the time of accident.
On perusal of Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Naveen Kumar (supra), it has been observed that the above judgment has been passed in a case pertaining to an uninsured vehicle which stood sold to different persons without getting its ownership formally transferred. It is in this context that it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that owner of a vehicle means the 'registered owner' thereof and legal heirs of a deceased in such a case cannot be left in state of uncertainty to seek compensation under the above said Act. However, since it was not a case of an insured vehicle, whereas in the present it is the admitted case of parties that offending vehicle stood registered with R-4 on the date of accident, neither above judgment is found to be applicable in the present case nor R-4/Insurance Co. is entitled to be exonerated for its liability towards the claimants. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by the MACP No. 593/16 Page no.22 of 30 Hon'ble High Court in MAC App. Nos. 521/15, 522/15 and 529/15 titled United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrestha & Ors., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Arora & Ors. and United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Rishi & Ors. respectively, wherein his Lordship has made similar observations regarding non application of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra) to the case of an insured vehicle and has declined the request for discharge or exoneration of Insurance Co. on this ground. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the M.V. Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the requirement of every vehicle having a valid insurance certificate or policy has been incorporated in the said Act as a beneficial measure and to secure the ends of justice and to ensure suitable and assured compensation for victims of a road accident. This object cannot be permitted to be defeated on a technical ground in a case like this where the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy on the day of accident.
Moreover, Ld. Counsel for R-2 has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. vs. Shakuntala & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 240. In the said case, the prime question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only about the liability to pay compensation amount as determined by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i.e. whether liability to pay it was of the purchaser of a vehicle alone or of its registered owner or both of them or of insurer of the said vehicle. In that case, it was held by the Claims Tribunal that only the subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle was liable to pay compensation amount and this finding was even upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. However, in appeal filed by the claimants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the relevant provisions contained in Section 2 (30) and 50 of the M.V. Act and also some existing judgments on the subject including the law laid in the celebrated judgment in the case of Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748, has observed that the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance co. were MACP No. 593/16 Page no.23 of 30 equally liable to pay compensation and the relevant observations made by their Lordships in the above case are as under:-
"14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act. On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
15. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was Jitender Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control over it and the possession and control of the truck were in the hands of the transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can, therefore, be fastened on Jitender Gupta, the transferor of the truck. In support of this submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC
414. The facts of the case in Deepa Devi are entirely different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In that circumstance, this Court observed that the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remained under requisition, the owner did not exercise any control over it: the driver might still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he had to drive the vehicle according to the direction of the officer of the State, in whose charge the vehicle was given. Save and except the legal ownership, the registered owner of the vehicle had lost all control over the vehicle. The decision in Deepa Devi was rendered on the special facts of that case and it has no application to the facts of the case in hand.
16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount as determined by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants within two months from the date of this judgment."
Thus, in view of the above legal position, it is held that even if R-3 was in possession and control of offending vehicle on the date of accident, but since the vehicle was not formally transferred or insured in his name, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, R-1 being driver and principal tort-feasor, R-2 being registered owner/insured and R-4 being insurer of offending vehicle are all jointly and severally liable to pay compensation MACP No. 593/16 Page no.24 of 30 amount awarded in this case, but since R-4/Insurance Co. has failed to show on record any case law giving them a right to recovery of compensation amount from R-2, R-4 is being directed to deposit the above award amount with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by way of crossed cheques/DDs in names of the petitioners within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-4 fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the insurance company with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
R-4 shall inform the claimants and their counsel through registered post that the cheques/DDs of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate him to seek release/disbursement of the same.
31. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
32. 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.
33. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 18.07.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by I.O. to Outstation matter the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by I.O. to
-do-
the Insurance company.
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.25 of 30
4. Date of filing of Report u/s.173 Cr.PC before
Not given
the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report
Outstation matter
(DAR) by IO before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on Insurance
-do-
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on claimant(s). -do-
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? -do-
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR -do-
10. Whether the police has verified the
-do-
documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, -do-
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not given by the Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not given Designated Officer of Insurance Co.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report Outstation matter within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly Legal offer not given computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Delay in filing reply Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of the Legal offer not given offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 24.11.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 20.01.2018 MACP No. 593/16 Page no.26 of 30 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to claimants and make an endorsement to this effect on passbooks.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near 06.09.2018 the place of their residence alongwith endorsement, PAN & Adhaar Cards?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o. H.No. 149, Village Claimant(s) & Post Office Hewa, Teh Baraut, District Baghpat, U.P.-250617.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of the P-1 = A/c no. 50411933438 claimant(s) and the address of the bank with being maintained with IFSC Code. Allahabad Bank, B.C. Hewa, Chhaprauli, U.P. having IFSC Code No. ALLA0211194.
P-2 = A/c no.
0578000100291065 of P-2
being maintained at Punjab
National Bank, Chhaprauli,
District Baghpat, UP having
IFSC Code No.
PUNB005780.
P-3 = A/c no. 59142455063
of P-3 being maintained with
Allahabad Bank, B.C. Hewa,
Chhaprauli, U.P. having IFSC
Code No. ALLA0211194.
P-4= A/c no.
351700101000836 being
maintained at Corporation
Bank, 3517 Chhaproli, Patti
Bhawala, Main Road,
Chhaprauli having IFSC
Code No. CORP0003517.
25. Whether the claimant (s) savings bank
account (s) is near his place of residence? Yes
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.27 of 30
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
34. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 03.03.2021.
Announced in the open court. (M.K.Nagpal) on 24.11.2020 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT MACP No. 593/16 Page no.28 of 30
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IV-A
1. Date of accident : 18.07.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Ravindra Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 43 years and around 8 months
4. Occupation of the deceased : Ex-Serviceman and Technical Grade II (TG-II)
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.21,389/- pm
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Savita Devi 44 years Wife
(ii) Sh. Vikas Kundu 23 years Son
(iii) Sh. Vinit Kundu 21 years Son
(iv) Smt. Daryayi 83 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.21,389.00
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.5,347.25
9. Less-Personal expenses of Rs.6,684.06
the deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,052.19
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.2,40,626.28
(D x 12)
12. Multiplier (E) 14
13. Total loss of dependency (D Rs.33,68,767/-
x 12 x E = F) rounded off
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Nil
love and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,76,000/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 16,500/-
estate (J)
18. Compensation towards Rs. 16,500/-
funeral expenses (K)
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.29 of 30
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.35,77,767/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED petition till deposit in 30 days
and 12% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 13,25,930.25
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.49,03,697/-
(L+M) rounded off
23. Award amount released P-1 = 10% of her share
P-2 = 10% of his share
P-3 = 10% of his share
P-4 = 50% of her share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs P-1 = 90% of her share
P-2 = 90% of his share
P-3 = 90% of his share
P-4 = 50% of her share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 03.03.2021
award
(M.K.Nagpal)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
24.11.2020
MACP No. 593/16 Page no.30 of 30