Delhi District Court
Ram Sakha Patel vs Deen Dayal Mehra on 29 July, 2020
Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT: SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 76005/16
1. Ram Sakha Patel, aged about 40 years
S/o Late Hinchlal Patel (father of the deceased)
2. Dil Basua Patel, aged about 40 years
W/o Ram Sakha Patel (Mother of deceased)
3. Sangeeta Patel, aged about 17 years
D/o Ram Sakha Patel (sister of the deceased)
4. Sonam Patel aged 15 years
D/o Ram Sakha Patel (sister of the deceased)
5. Manju Patel, aged about 13 years
D/o Ram Sakha Patel (sister of the deceased)
Petitioner no.(s) 3 to 5 being minor represented
Through their Father Shri Ram Sakha Patel as
Natural Guardian
All permanent R/o Village Haunda Bandh
Police Station Amliya, District Sidhi (M.P.)
Presently House No. 96A Mankesha Road,
Anupam Garden, PS Neb Sarai, New Delhi ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Deen Dayal Mehra
S/o Shri N.R Mehra
R/o Village S.P.M. Colony
District Hausangabad (M.P.) ..... Driver
2. Sahab Singh Chouhan
S/o Shri Tulsiram Chouhan
R/o Ward No. 24 Rasuliya
Hausangabad (M.P.) ..... Owner
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.1/17
Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. .......Insurance company.
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 28.09.2016
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 27.07.2020
Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2020
JUDGMENT:
1. Claimants, being the parents and sisters of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation u/s 140/166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) for untimely death of Saukhilal Patel in a road accident to the tune Rs.75,00,000/. Claim petition was filed on the basis that 14.09.2015 Saukhilal Patel was travelling to Eicher Company Mandi deep from ARCAL factory on his motor cycle and when he reached at Gelating Chowraha, Mandideep, Bhopal, M.P.at 9.45 A.M., offending truck bearing no. MP05G 6863 which had been coming from Bhopal side towards Housangabad driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 hit the motor cycle of the deceased due to which deceased received severe injuries and rushed to the hospital and eventually succumbed to the same on 24.09.2015.
2. In their joint written statement respondents no.1 and 2 have stated that the respondent no. 1 was having an effective and valid driving license and the offending vehicle was under valid and effective insurance policy vide no. 152891/31/2015/1992 valid from 30.11.2014 to 29.11.2015, hence they are not answerable to pay any compensation though they had denied of occurring of any accident.
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.2/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
3. In his written statement respondent no.3 had taken the preliminary objection about the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition as none of the parties reside or do any business within the territory of the present Court. It is also stated that no site plan and not a single document has been filed by the claimant which refers for the involvement of the said alleged vehicle. He further stated that answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, however, he had not disputed the offending vehicle was insured with him.
4. For just adjudication of the case following issues were framed vide order dated 30.01.2017:
1. Whether Sauki Lal Patel succumbed to the injuries sustained a road traffic accident on 14.09.2015 at Gelating Chowraha, Mandideep, Bhopal, M.P. due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. MP 05G 6863 by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. The petitioners have examined two witnesses. Sh. Ram Sakha Patel examined as PW1 who tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/J and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/A to PW1/I. Sh. Mahesh Kumar Singh examined as PW2 who tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the document Ex.PW2/B.
6. The respondents did not examine any witness.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under :
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.3/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.I S S U E No. 1
8. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver. In a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. Though it is an admitted legal position that the negligence on the part of driver with respect to the use of vehicle needs to be established but the same is to be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III(2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
9. PW1 Ram Sakha Patel deposed that he is the father of the deceased. It is stated that Saukhilal Patel on 14.09.2015 at 9.45 a.m was travelling in a motor cycle no. MP38MD 4031 from ARCAI factory to Eicher company, Mandi Deep for giving an interview. He stated that when he reached at Gelatin Chowraha NH 12, the respodnent no. 1 while driving truck no. MP05G6863 coming from Bhopal side towards Housangabad in a very rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle in which deceased was travelling. Due to forceful impact, his son Shaukhi Lal sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the Mandi Deep Hospital for medical treatment by complainant namely Mahesh Kumar Singh. He was referred and admitted in Nobel Hospital, Bhopal. During the course of medical treatment, his son was died on 24.09.2015. He stated that his deceased son at the time of his death was aged about 22 years and was an engineer (after passing Higher Secondary Examination, he had done three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering). During crossexamination he stated that he is not an Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.4/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
eye witness to the accident.
10. PW2 Mahesh Kumar Singh is the eye witness. He stated that he is the friend of the deceased Shaukhi Lal. He further stated that on 14.09.2015 at 9.45 a.m. Shaukhi Lal was travelling in his motorcycle no. MP 38MD4031 from ARCAI factory to Eicher Company, Mandi Deep for giving an interview. At that time, he alongwith his friend was coming towards Mandeep and when they reached at Gelatin Chowraha NH 12 he had seen the driver of the truck bearing no. MP 05G6863 coming in a rash and negligent manner from Bhopal side towards Housangabad and hit the motorcycle in which Shaukhi Lal was travelling. This witness stated that he called the ambulance by making a call 108 and took the injured Shaukhi Lal to the Mandi Deep Hospital for medical treatment and thereafter the injured referred to Nobel Hospital Bhopal where the injured was died. During crossexamination he stated that he was not on the same vehicle on which the deceased Shaukhi Lal was travelling. He was on another motorcycle alongwith his friend Akash Gautam.
11. In the present case the petitioners have placed on record the certified copy of criminal record which includes FIR, charge sheet, site plan, mechanical inspection report, postmortem report etc. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of PW2 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Singh. Site plan also corroborates the testimony of the witness. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of PW2 who has deposed the same facts before this tribunal as stated to the police. Even the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. No other version of accident has come on record, except the one stated by PW2. Therefore, in view of the above discussion it is established on record that Saukhilal Patel succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 14.09.2015 at Gelating Chowraha, Mandideep, Bhopal, M.P. due to Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.5/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. MP05G6863 by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
12. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 213. Admittedly, deceased Saukhilal Patel died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Saukhilal Patel. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil No. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail.
It was further held in National Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra), the amount in the above heads should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. Following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads: S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Love and Affection [50,000x5being 2,50,000/ the dependent upon the deceased] 2 Funeral Expenses (10% enhancement 16,500/ =15000x10%)) 3 Loss of Estate (10% enhancement) 16,500/ =15000x10%) Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.6/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
14. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. The deceased was unmarried. As per the High School Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was 15.10.1994, the accident took place on 14.09.2015, so, he was about 21 years of age at the time of accident and the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
15.Counsel of the petitioner Sh. C.M. Patel argued that deceased was a bright student as reflected in testimonials produced before this tribunal. He further deposed that the deceased had obtained grade 'A' in the three years diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Patel College of Science & Technology Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki, VishwaVidyalaya (University of Technology of Madhya Pradesh). In higher Secondary examination, he had obtained the distinction in four subjects out of five subjects. He submits that the deceased would have earned atleast Rs.50,000/ p.m if he would be alive, therefore, the dependency shall be taken as Rs. 50,000/ p.m. He has relied upon the judgments passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, SLP No. 25599 of 2014 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lata Devi & Ors., MAC. APP 189/2014.
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.7/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company Sh. Kumar Alok had argued that dependency of the deceased shall be calculated as per the minimum wages of skilled labour prevailing in M.P. i.e. Rs.389 per day in the year 2015.
17. Under Section 166 (4) of the Act, 1988, a Claim Tribunal is required to treat a report of any accident forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) of the Act, 1988 as an application for compensation under the Act. Section 158 (6) of the Act, 1988 provides that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or reported under the said section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within 30 days from the date of recording of information or on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within 30 days of the receipt of such report, forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and the Insurer. Section 166 (1) (c) & (d) of the Act, 1988 provide that where death has resulted from an accident, an application for compensation can be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorized by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Proviso to Section 166 (1) of the Act, 1988 provides that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Evidently under the Act, 1988, a legal representative of the deceased would be entitled to compensation under the Act, 1988 even if he had not filed a claim petition and the Tribunal would consider the report under Section 158 (6) of the Act, 1988 as Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.8/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
an application for compensation under the Act.
18. Section 168 (1) of the Act, 1988 provides that a Claim Tribunal, on receipt of an application for compensation, shall hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just.
19. The dispute in the present case is what would be a just compensation on the facts of the case. The rival submissions of the counsel for the parties are varied at a great length. Sh. C.M. Patel, counsel for the petitioners had argued that an amount of Rs.50,000/ per month would be taken for determination of dependency considering the bright educational qualifications of the deceased who was died at a prime youth while the counsel for the insurance company had taken a plea that the minimum wages of the highly skilled person be taken for the calculation of dependency.
20. It is not disputed that the deceased had passed the higher secondary examination and had obtained the distinction in four subjects out of five subjects. The deceased has also passed three years diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Therefore, the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company has no relevance. An educated person could have earned more than an illiterate or semi illiterate person.
21. Considering the academic record of the deceased and the fact that at the time of accident he was going to give an interview in Eicher Company, this Court is Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.9/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
considered that deceased would have earned Rs. 30,000/ per month.
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners Sh. C.M. Patel further submitted that deduction of the personal expenses has to be taken 1/4th because of the fact that there are five dependent including three unmarried sisters who were solely depended upon the deceased. However, it is well settled in case of unmarried, fifty percent (50%) deductions has to be made for personal expenses when the father of the deceased is alive. Here in the present case, the father is alive.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. The deceased was about 21 years of age at the time of accident. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.42,000/ (30,000 + 30,000 x 40/100). The deceased was unmarried. Therefore, onehalf is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.21000. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.2,52,000. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.45,36,000/ (Rs.2,52,000 x 18). I therefore, award Rs.45,36,000/ to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
Medical Expenses
24. In the present case, the deceased was expired after 10 days of the accident. The petitioners have spent expenses on medical of the deceased and placed on record medical bills of Rs.2,81,953/. I also therefore, award Rs.2,81,953/ to the petitioners.
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.10/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
25.In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under : LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 45,36,000/ LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 2,50,000/ FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 16,500/ LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 16,500/ MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 2,81,953/ ============ TOTAL = Rs. 51,00,953/ ============ LIABILITY
26. No doubt, here is the contract of insurance, then naturally firstly the insurance company has to pay the entire amount to the petitioner. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, primary liability to compensate the petitioner is of respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It has come on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, so it is contractually liable to compensate the petitioner.
RELIEF
27. In view of my findings, I award Rs.51,00,953/ (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Nine Hundred Fifty Three Only) to the petitioners as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization.
RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1(Father of the deceased)
28. A sum of Rs.15,00,953/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being father of the deceased.
Out of this amount an amount of Rs.15,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.11/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
1. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 01 years.
2. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
3. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
4. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
5. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 05 years.
6. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 06 years.
7. Rs. 3,00,000/ for a period of 07 years.
RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.2 (Mother of the deceased)
29. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being mother of the deceased. An amount of Rs.15,00,000/ is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 01 years.
2. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
3. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 03 years.
4. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
5. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 05 years.
6. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 06 years.
7. Rs. 3,00,000/ for a period of 07 years.
RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.3 to 5 (Sisters of the deceased)
30. A sum of Rs.7,00,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 3 to 5 being sisters of the deceased. An amount of Rs.7,00,000/ each is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 2,00,000/ each for a period of 01 years.
2. Rs. 2,00,000/ each for a period of 02 years.
3. Rs. 2,00,000/ each for a period of 03 years.Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.12/17
Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
4. Rs. 1,00,000/ each for a period of 04 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
31. In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
32. The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
33. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioners / claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioners / claimants without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.13/17 Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioners / claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioners / claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. On the request of petitioners / claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
12. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 4112541127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to her place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by her to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 31. The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.14/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
2. The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
3. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
4. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
5. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
6. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 29.08.2020.
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.15/17Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
FORM IVA SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident : 14.09.2015
2. Name of the deceased : Saukhilal Patel
3. Age of the deceased : 21 years (at the time of accident)
4.Occupation of the : deceased
5) Income of the deceased : Rs. 30,000/ Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S.No Name Age Relation
1 Sh. Ramsakha Patel 40 years Father
2 Dil Pasua Patel 40 years Mother
3. Sangeeta Patel 17 years Sister
4. Sonam Patel 15 years Sister
Manju Patel 13 years Sister
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Income of the deceased (A) Rs.30,000/ p.m.
2 Add Future Prospects (B) Rs.12000/
3 Less Personal expenses of the Rs.21000/
deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.21000/
[(A+B)C = D]
5 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.2,52,000/
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency Rs.45,36,000/
(Dx12xE=F)
8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs.2,81,953/
9 Compensation for loss of consortium
(H)
10 Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs.16,500/
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.16/17
Ramsakha Patel and Ors. v. Deen Dayal Mehra & Ors.
11 Compensation towards funeral Rs.16,500/ expenses (J) 12 Compensation for loss of Love and Rs.2,50,000/ Affection 13 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.51,00,953/ (F+G+H+I+J = K) 14 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs.17,80,232/ award (L) 16 Total amount including interest Rs.68,81,185/ (K+L) 17 Award amount released Rs.17,81,185/ 18 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.51,00,000/ 19 Mode of disbursement of the award Some amount is released to the amount to the claimant (s). petitioners and some amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit.
20 Next date for compliance of the 29.08.2020
award
ATUL Digitally signed
by ATUL
Announced through WEBEX meetings KUMAR KUMAR GARG
Date: 2020.07.30
on 29th July, 2020 GARG 12:52:47 +0530
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 76005/16 Page No.17/17