Delhi District Court
Dar - Ansar Ali Shah vs Som Veer on 8 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. TARUN SAHRAWAT
PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matters of:
I). MACT no. 326/18; Ansar Ali Shah & Ors. v. Sombir Singh & Anr.
II). MACT no. 527/18; Ansar Ali Shah v. Sombir Singh & Anr.
III). MACT no. 528/18; Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah v. Sombir Singh & Anr.
(I). MACT no. 326/2018
1. Ansar Ali Shah (husband of deceased)
W/o Sh. Rakib Shah
2. Anisa Khatoon (Daughter of deceased)
3. Muskan Khatoon (Daughter of deceased)
4. Muslim Ali (Son of deceased)
5. Aesha Khatoon (Daughter of deceased)
6. Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah (Son of deceased)
Petitioner nos. 2 to 6, being minors, represented through
their father/ natural guardian/ petitioner no.1.
All R/o E-373, House of Wazid, near DTC Depot,
Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
Permanent residents of :Madhabpur, Dorojoy Nagar,
Purba, Medinipur, West Bengal-721635. ..........Petitioners
versus
1. Sombir (Driver)
S/o late Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o D-1/19, New Seelampur, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Earlier named as EDMC)
Through : Commissioner, MCD,
Head Office at : Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. ........Respondents
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 1 of 26 Pages Date of institution : 14.05.2018 Final arguments heard on : 06.02.2024 Date of Award : 08.02.2024 (II). MACT no. 527/2018 Ansar Ali Shah (injured) S/o Sh. Rakib Shah R/o E-373, House of Wazid, near DTC Depot, Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
Permanent resident of :Madhabpur, Dorojoy Nagar, Purba, Medinipur, West Bengal-721635. ............Petitioner versus
1. Sombir (Driver) S/o late Sh. Kartar Singh R/o D-1/19, New Seelampur, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Earlier named as EDMC) Through : Commissioner, MCD, Head Office at : Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center, JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. ........Respondents Date of institution : 31.08.2018 Final arguments heard on : 06.02.2024 Date of Award : 08.02.2024 (III). MACT no. 528/2018 Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah (injured) S/o Sh. Ansar Ali Shah R/o E-373, House of Wazid, near DTC Depot, Seemapuri, Delhi-110095.
Permanent residents of :Madhabpur, Dorojoy Nagar, Purba, Medinipur, West Bengal-721635. ............Petitioner MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 2 of 26 Pages versus
1. Sombir (Driver) S/o late Sh. Kartar Singh R/o D-1/19, New Seelampur, Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Earlier named as EDMC) Through : Commissioner, MCD, Head Office at : Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center, JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. ........Respondents Date of institution : 14.05.2018 Final arguments heard on : 06.02.2024 Date of Award : 08.02.2024 AWAR D
1. Vide this common award, I shall decide three DAR (Detailed Accident Report) cases filed by the Investigating Agency in respect of the fatal injury suffered by Marjina Bibi (deceased in MACT no.326/2018) and injuries sustained by petitioners namely Ansar Ali Shah (injured in MACT no.527/2018) and Sayal Ali Shah (injured in MACT no.528/2018) in the same motor vehicular accident. The DARs have been treated as claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the claimants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerged from the FIR are that on 15.02.2018, the petitioner Ansar Ali Shah along with his wife Marjina Bibi (both rag pickers) and their four year old son Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah reached at garbage store (Kuda Ghar) built behind Family Courts, MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 3 of 26 Pages Vishwas Nagar, NSA Colony, to pick the garbage and at about 04:45 p.m., while they were collecting garbage, all of a sudden, a JCB vehicle bearing no. DL1M-9172 (in short "offending vehicle"), being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, came and hit the wall there, as a result, the said wall fell over all three of them and seeing this, the driver ran away from the spot leaving the offending vehicle there. PCR came and removed the injured to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where their MLCs were prepared. Marjina Bibi was declared 'brought dead' whereas Ansar Ali Shah and his minor son Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah were observed to have sustained injuries. In connection with the accident, FIR no.47/2018, under sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi. After completion of the investigation, the DARs were filed submitting that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 which was owned by respondent no.2.
3. In response to the notice of DAR, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written-statement in fatal case (MACT no.326/2018) whereas, they filed separate written-statements in other two injury cases (MACT nos. 527/2018 & 528/2018). In their reply, it is submitted that the petitioner(s) is/are not entitled to any claim from the answering respondents as no accident had taken place due to the negligence of the respondent no.1 and that the instant claim petitions have been filed with the view to harass the respondents for extorting money.
4. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in fatal case on 26.07.2018 and in injury cases on 20.11.2018, as under:
In MACT No. 326/2018MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 4 of 26 Pages (Re: deceased Marjina Bibi)
i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.
DL1M-9172 on 15.02.2018 at about 04:45 p.m. at the spot behind Family Court, Dustbin, NSA Colony, Delhi, in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Marjina Bibi? OPP
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 527/2018(Re: injured Ansar Ali Shah)
i). Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 15.02.2018 at 04:45 p.m. at Kuda Ghar, behind Family Court, NSA Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Farsh Bazar, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.DL-1M-9172, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii). Relief.
In MACT No. 528/2018(Re: injured Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah)
i). Whether the petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 15.02.2018 at 04:45 p.m. at Kuda Ghar, behind Family Court, NSA Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Farsh Bazar, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.DL-1M-9172, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 5 of 26 Pages
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii). Relief.
5. Vide order dated 20.11.2018, my learned predecessor consolidated the injury cases (MACT nos. 527/2018 & 528/2018) with the direction that common evidence of injury cases would be recorded and kept in the main case MACT no. 527/2018 (re: injured Ansar Ali Shah).
6. In view of above, separate evidence was recorded in fatal case (MACT no. 326/2018), whereas, common evidence was led in injury cases (MACT nos. 527/2018 & 528/2018), as under :
In MACT no.326/2018 (in re: deceased Marjina Bibi):
(i) PW1 Ansar Ali Shah, husband of deceased Marjina Bibi testified being eye-witness of the accident. He deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding the manner of accident, income and occupation of his deceased wife and about the losses suffered due to her death and relied upon the following documents :-
• DAR as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
• Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR). • Copy of death-certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR). • Copy of his PAN Card as Ex.PW1/4.
• Copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/5.
In MACT no.527/18 & 528/18 (in re: injured Ansar Ali Shah & Sayal Ali Shah):
(i) PW1 Ansar Ali Shah, being injured (in MACT no.527/18) and being father of minor injured Sayal Ali Shah (in MACT no.528/18) MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 6 of 26 Pages deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 regarding the manner of accident, injuries suffered by them, expenses and losses incurred due to their accident and relied upon the following documents :-
• Copy of Aadhaar Card of injured Ansar Ali Shah as Ex.PW1/2. • DAR as Ex.PW1/3.
• Medical Documents as Ex.PW1/4.
• Copy of Aadhaar Card of injured Sayal Ali Shah as Ex.PW1/5. • Cop of Birth-Certificate of injured Sayal Ali Shah as Ex.PW1/6. • Medical bills and treatment papers as Ex.PW1/7.
7. PE was closed in all the cases on the statement made separately by learned counsel for the petitioner(s). No evidence was led by respondents and thus, respondents' evidence was closed on 05.02.2024.
8. I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence and other material placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 (in all three cases):
9. Issue no.1, being interlinked in all the three cases, shall be decided here together by my common findings. It is the settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 7 of 26 Pages & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. On this issue, the injured Ansar Ali Shah, who is husband of deceased Marjina as well as father of minor injured Sayal Ali Shah, entered into the witness box as PW1. He testified on the lines of FIR that he and his wife used to do the work of lifting scraps/ wastages and on 15.02.2018, he along with his wife Marjina Bibi and son Sohail (Sayal Ali Shah) aged four years, came to NSA Colony, Delhi for lifting wastages. He deposed that at about 04:45 p.m., they were doing their job at Wastage Room, behind Family Court, New Vishwas Nagar, NSA Colony, Delhi, all of a sudden, a JCB vehicle bearing no. DL1M-9172, being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner and at a fast speed came and hit the wall there, as a result, wall fell upon them and driver/ respondent no.1 fled away leaving the offending vehicle at the spot. PW1 further testified that they were taken out of the debris and then taken to hospital, where their MLCs were prepared. He and his son sustained injuries whereas, his wife Marjina was declared 'brought dead'. PW1 categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to negligence of the respondent no.1/ driver.
11. The eye-witnesses/ injured PW1 Ansar Ali Shah was cross- examined at length by learned counsel for the respondents. I may note that the aspect of rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 remained intact and his testimony to that effect could not be shattered in any manner during MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 8 of 26 Pages his cross-examination and therefore, his testimony has to be accepted on its face value itself. Further, nothing else is available on record which may suggest any falsity in the oral testimony of the eye-witness/ injured.
12. Further, the ocular testimony of the injured/ eye-witness PW1 is also corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record by way of DAR comprising of FIR, arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1), seizure memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, FIR and the charge-sheet, etc. Seizure memo of the offending vehicle, which is part of the DAR, shows that the offending vehicle was seized from the spot on the date of accident itself and site plan, which is also part of the DAR fully supports the version of the petitioner regarding the manner of accident.
13. Furthermore, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle to the version of the injured/ eye-witness. The respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the testimony of the eye-witness (PW1) regarding the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
14. It is noteworthy that FIR was registered in the matter without any delay on the date of accident itself and registration number of the offending vehicle is clearly mentioned in the FIR. Not only this, the respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted in the criminal case by the police after detailed MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 9 of 26 Pages investigation and in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge sheet are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 2008, which support the version of petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
15. Thus, the facts that FIR had been registered and charge sheet had also been filed against the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that in so far as FIR has been registered, criminal case has been initiated against driver of offending vehicle and vehicle was seized, the requirement of proving the preponderance of probability of accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has been established. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008) 101 DRJ 645, wherein it was observed:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. ON perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) Criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 10 of 26 Pages Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel of the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of driver."
16. Besides above, the MLC of deceased Marjina Bibi (in MACT no.326/2018), prepared at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, reflects that she was brought dead in the Casualty of hospital with alleged history of being injured due to wall collapse. Further, postmortem of deceased was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi vide postmortem report no. 261/18, which is part of the DAR Ex.PW1/1 (colly) and shows that death of deceased Marjina Bibi was caused due to shock as a result of cranio cerebral damage along with multiple injuries consequent upon blunt force impact.
17. MLC of injured Ansar Ali Shah (in MACT no.527/2018) shows that he was brought to the hospital on being injured due to wall collapse and found to have suffered simple injuries.
18. MLC of injured Sohail (Sayal Ali Shah) (in MACT no.528/2018) reflects that he was brought to the hospital on being injured due to wall collapse. Though on local examination as per MLC, he was opined to have sustained simple injury but as per his further medical treatment record Ex.PW1/7, he was found to have sustained fracture of tibia shaft of left leg.
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 11 of 26 Pages
19. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into death of Marjina Bibi (in MACT no.326/2018) and simple injury to petitioner namely Ansar Ali Shah (in MACT no.527/2018) and grievous injury to petitioner namely Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah (in MACT no.528/2018). Issue no.1 in all the three cases is, accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner(s).
ISSUE NO.2
20. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners in all the cases are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated.
21. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) AC 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION In MACT no. 4326/2018 (In re: deceased Marjina Bibi)
22. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Marjina Bibi. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 12 of 26 Pages laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 13 of 26 Pages The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balanc expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 14 of 26 Pages PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
23. As per Aadhaar Card of the deceased Marjina Bibi, which has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/2, her date of birth is 01.01.1990 and accordingly, the age of deceased on the date of accident (15.02.2018) was around 28 years.
Assessment of Income of deceased
24. PW1 Ansar Ali Shah testified that her wife Marjina Bibi (deceased) was engaged in the work of lifting wastages and from said work, she used to earn a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month but no document has been placed on record in support of the claim of said income of deceased nor any document has been filed to show her education. However, the Aadhaar Card (Ex.PW1/2) of deceased shows that she was residing in Delhi at the time of accident. In absence of any documentary evidence in respect of income of deceased, her income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to unskilled category of workers in Delhi at the time of accident (15.02.2018), which were Rs.13,584/- per month. Hence, income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.13,584/- per month.
Application of Multiplier
25. As held above, deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 15 of 26 Pages MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21 to 25 years) M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs M-5 Age group between 66 and above In view of above, the deceased being 28 years of age, multiplier of 17, applicable to the age group of 26 to 30 years, has to be applied here to determine the compensation.
Future Prospects
26. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 16 of 26 Pages below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
27. The deceased can be considered to be a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, an addition of 40% of the income of deceased (aged below 40 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses
28. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six) PW1, husband of deceased, deposed that deceased left behind her five minor children namely Anisha Khatun, Muskan Khatun, Aesha Khatun, Muslem Ali Shah and Sayal Ali Shah, who were dependent upon the deceased. Thus, there are total six claimants including the husband of MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 17 of 26 Pages deceased. Therefore, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards her personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
29. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157), a compensation of Rs. 40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, the petitioner no.1, husband of deceased shall be entitled to spousal consortium, whereas, all the five children of deceased shall be entitled to parental consortium. Thus, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Loss of Consortium :
(a). Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/-
(b). Parental Consortium Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000x5)
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total = Rs.2,70,000/-
Thus, petitioner shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under this head.
30. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments herein above by applying the multiplier of 13, after making MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 18 of 26 Pages deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased with an addition of 25% future prospects, the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.13,584/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs.5,433.60/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and living Rs.4,754.40/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.14,263.20/-
(A+B)-C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,71,158.40/-
6. Multiplier (E) 177. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.29,09,693/-
8. Medical expenses (G) --
9. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
(I) (40,000x6)
10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
11. Compensation for funeral expenses (K) Rs.15,000/-
12. Total compensation (Rs.) Rs.31,79,693/-
rounded off to Rs.31,80,000/-
Here, I may note that vide order dated 01.08.2018, an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded to the petitioners and thereafter, the said amount was also released, which is required to be adjusted herein. Accordingly, after deducting this amount, petitioners shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.31,30,000/- (31,80,000-50,000). Thus, the compensation in this case comes to Rs.31,30,000/-.
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 19 of 26 Pages In MACT no. 527/2018 (In re: injured Ansar Ali Shah)
31. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that immediately after the accident on 15.02.2018, injured Ansar Ali Shah was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi, where their MLC was prepared vide MLC no.488/18. As per MLC, he sustained lacerated wound over wrist (right), tenderness over right shoulder and abrasion over right side of forehead. On further perusal of MLC, I may note that x-ray of his right shoulder with clavicle and AP wrist were conducted and as per said x-ray reports, doctor opined the injuries sustained by him to be "grievous" in nature.
32. I may note that except the MLC and Emergency Registration Card of the date of accident (15.02.2018), the injured did not place on record any document to show the expenses incurred on his further medical treatment, conveyance, special diet and attendant charges, if any. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact the injured had suffered 'grievous' injury as per MLC and that except the MLC and Emergency Registration Card of the date of accident, no document of further treatment or medical expenses incurred, if any, has been placed on record I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the injured/ petitioner Ansar Ali Shah is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
In MACT no. 528/2018(In re: injured Sayal Ali Shah)
33. Perusal of record shows that the injured Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah was a minor child, aged four years at the time of accident on 15.02.2018.
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 20 of 26 Pages Immediately after the accident, he was removed to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC no. no.487/18. As per MLC, he was referred to higher center at GTB Hospital, Delhi as he needed neurosurgical opinion. As per medical treatment documents Ex.PW1/7 (colly) placed on record, on being referred, injured was taken to GTB Hospital, he was diagnosed to have sustained fracture of shaft of tibia left leg. It is evident that for his treatment, the injured child Sohail made a number of visits at GTB Hospital and his treatment continued till 08.03.2018 as per treatment documents Ex.PW1/7. I may note that except a single medical bill of Rs.19/-, no other medical bill has been placed on record. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the minor injured Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. Ordered accordingly.
INTEREST ON AWARD
34. Petitioner(s) in all the three cases shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of accident till realization.
LIABILITY
35. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 MCD and respondent no.1 was driving it as an employee on behalf of respondent no.2 and accident had taken place during the course of employment of respondent no.1. In view MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 21 of 26 Pages of above, it is held that respondent no.2 MCD (earlier known as EDMC) shall be entitled to pay the compensation to petitioner(s) in all the three claim cases.
RELIEF In MACT no. 326/2018 (In re: deceased Marjina Bibi)
36. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.31,30,000/- (Rs. Thirty One Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondents, who shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code: UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondents are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsel.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
37. All the claimants/ petitioners are held to be entitled to the compensation and they shall share the award amount of Rs.31,30,000/- along with interest thereon, in the following manner:
Petitioner No. Name of Petitioner Share in Award Amount
1. Ansar Ali Shah Rs.13,80,000/- along with the (husband of deceased) corresponding interest.
2. Anisa Khatun Rs.3,50,000/- along with the (daughter of deceased) corresponding interest.
3. Muskan Khatun Rs.3,50,000/- along with the (daughter of deceased) corresponding interest.
4. Aesha Khatun Rs.3,50,000/- along with the MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 22 of 26 Pages (daughter of deceased) corresponding interest.
5. Muslem Ali Shah Rs.3,50,000/- along with the (son on of deceased) corresponding interest.
6. Sohail @ Sohail Ali Shah Rs.3,50,000/- along with the (son of deceased) corresponding interest.
38. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma is directed to forthwith release a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- along with the interest on his share to petitioner no.1 Ansar Ali Shah and remaining amount of Rs.11,00,000/- shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) to be prepared in his name, payable to him in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
39. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is further directed that share of each of the minor petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 6 along with the corresponding respective interest thereon shall be kept secured in the form of respective FDR to be prepared in the name of each of the minor petitioner for the respective period till they attain the age of majority.
40. The amount of aforesaid FDRs on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of petitioners without any further order to that effect.
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 23 of 26 Pages RELIEF In MACT no. 527/2018 (In re: injured Ansar Ali Shah)
41. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) to the petitioner Ansar Ali Shah along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondents, who shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code: UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondents are directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners and their counsel.
Disbursement of Award Amount
42. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is directed that after compliance of the award, the entire award amount along with interest thereon shall be released forthwith to the petitioner Ansar Ali Shah by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account.
RELIEF MACP no. 528/2018 (In re: injured Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah)
43. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) to the injured/ petitioner Sohail @ Sayal Ali Shah along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization to be paid by the respondents, who shall deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code: UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 24 of 26 Pages Disbursement of Award Amount
44. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, is directed that after compliance of the award, the entire award amount along with interest thereon shall be kept secured in the form of an FDR to be prepared in the name of minor petitioner Sayal Ali Shah for the period till he attains the age of majority. The amount of FDR on maturity would be released in MACT saving bank account of petitioner without any further order to that effect.
Direction to the Petitioner(s)
45. The petitioner(s) shall open a saving bank account near the place of his resident. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not 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 MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 25 of 26 Pages before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(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.
46. With these observations, all five claim petitions are disposed of. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Court on 08.02.2024 (Dr. Tarun Sahrawat) Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi MACT nos. 326/2018, 527/2018 & 528/2018 26 of 26 Pages