Delhi District Court
Devki Devi And Anr. vs Sagir & Ors. on 19 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG : PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors.
1. Devki Devi,
W/o Sh. Ishwar Lal,
2. Ishwar lal,
S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram,
Both resident of.-
Plot No. 50 (Corner -FF),
A-1, Block, Birla Farm,
Church Street, Chhatarpur Extension,
New Delhi-110074.
......... (LRs of the deceased)
........... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sagir,
S/o Sh. Shoukat,
R/o Village Mayapur,
PS Tapukra, District Alwar,
Rajasthan-301707.
........... (Driver)
2 Lekh Raj,
S/o Sh. Sirdari Lal,
H.No. 59, Block-2, Pali,
District Faridabad, Haryana.
........... (Owner)
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 1 of 27
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
though Divisional Office Manager,
NH-5, R-2, Near Badsha Khan, Choks,
NIT, Faridabad.
..... (Insurance Co.)
...[Respondents)
Date of Institution : 28.01.2020
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 10.10.2022
Date of pronouncement : 19.10.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. Claimants being the LRs of the deceased aged about 46 years have filed the claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming the compensation for the death of the deceased.
2. The facts of this case need not having any big canvas:-
"On 03.08.2019 at around 06.30 pm while the deceased manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal was going on his motorcycle towards Gwal Pahari, Gurugram and when he reached near Ghata Pulla, suddenly and abruptly one Heavy MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 2 of 27 Goods Trailor# bearing registration no. HR-38- W-4446 had struck the motorcycle from the side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and deceased had come under the side wheel and it took the deceased on road. Deceased was taken for treatment to the hospital but he was expired during the treatment."
3. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent no. 1, 2 and 2 for filing of WS.
4. Respondent no. 1 and 2 has stated that no such accident has ever taken place, therefore, answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. However, the defence is only for the name sake and submitted that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company.
5. Respondent no. 3 has also filed the written statement taking the MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 3 of 27 defence that the petition is not maintainable, however, it has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it on the date of accident.
6. After completion of pleadings of the parties, vider order dated 10.03.2022, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether deceased Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar lal succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road accident on 03.08.2019 at around 06.30 pm at Village Ghata, Puliain between Sector 55-56 Gurugram due to the rash and negligent act of driving of Heavy Goods Tailor bearing no. HR-38-W-4446 being driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (New India Assurance Comapny ltd.)...? OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom? ..... OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Petitioner being the father of the deceased had appeared in the witness box and examined himself as PW 1. He has reiterated the facts mentioned in his affidavit of evidence. He has relied upon the following documents:-
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 4 of 27
1. copy of the aadhar card of Manoj Kumar Ex. PW 1/1 is de-
exhibited and marked as Mark A.
2. Copy of the PAN card of Manoj Kumar is Ex. PW ½ is de- exhibited and marked as Mark B.
3. Copy of the Voter ID Card of Manoj Kumar is Ex. PW 1/3 is de- exhibited and is marked as Mark C.
4. Copy of the matriculation certificate of Manoj Kumar is Ex. PW ¼ is de-exhibited and marked as Mark D.
5. Copy of B.Com III of Manoj Kumar is Ex. PW 1/5 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark E.
6. copy of the driving license of Manoj Kumar Ex. PW 1/6 is de- exhibited and marked as Mark F.
7. Copy of death certificate of Manoj Kumar Ex.PW1/7 is de- exhibited and is marked as Mark G
8. Certified copy of divorce (Ist motion) of Manoj Kumar is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Certified copy of divorce (IInd motion) of Manoj Kumar is Ex.PW1/9.
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 5 of 27
10. Copy of birth certificate of minor child Mohit son of Manoj.
11. Ex.PW1/10 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark H.
12.Original employment/salary certificate of Manoj Kumar is Ex.PW1/11 is de-exhibited and is marked as Mark H.
13. Copy of salary cheque of Manoj Kumar for the month of April and May 2019 is Ex.PW1/12.
14. Copy of salary cheque of Manoj Kumar for the month of June 2019 is Ex.PW1/13.
15. Copy of salary cheque of Manoj Kumar for the month of July 2019 and Ist August to 3rd August 2019 is Ex.PW1/14.
16. Copy of passbook of Axis Bank, joint account number 910010033474682 showing all the above three cheques paid in the account of Manoj Kumar is Ex.PW1/15.
17. Copy of PAN card of Devki Devi petitioner no.1 Ex.PW1/16 is de-exhibited and is now marked as Mark I
18. Copy of Voter ID card of Devki Devi Ex.PW1/17 is de- exhibited and is now marked as Mark J.
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 6 of 27
19. Copy of my PAN card is Ex.PW1/18 is de-exhibited and is now marked as Mark K. 20 Copy of my voter ID Card is Ex.PW1/19 is de-exhibited and is now marked as Mark L.
21.Copy of my matriculation certificate is Ex.PW1/20 is de- exhibited and is now marked as Mark M.
22.Copy of RC of vehicle number HR 12 J 2408 dated 22.01.2007 Bajaj CT 100 DLX Motorcycle is Ex.PW1/21.
23. Certified copy of DL of Sagir driver of the offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/22.
24. Certified copy of RC of offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/23.
25. Certified copy of fitness certificate of offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/24.
26. Certified copy of Policy schedule cum insurance certificate of offending vehicle issued by Respondent No.3 is Ex.PW1/25.
27. Certified copy of National permit of offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/26.
28. Certified copy of MLC No.633 dated 03.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/27. MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 7 of 27
29.Certified copy of death summary dated 03.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/28.
30.Certified copy of Post mortem report dated 04.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/29.
31. Certified copy of statement of eye witness Subhash son of Sh. Sita Ram dated 03.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/30.
32. Certified copy of FIR No.292/2019 dated 04.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/31.
33. Certified copy of site plan dated 04.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/32.
34.True copy of Fard Barmadagi of offending vehicle dated 04.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/33.
35. True copy of statement dated 04.08.2019 of Sipoy Dushyant dated 04.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/34.
36. True copy of statement dated 04.08.2019 of Sipoy Aman is Ex.PW1/35.
37. True copy of Fard Makbujagi dated 06.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/36.
38. True copy of police notice dated 06.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/37.
39.Certified copy of arrest memo of Sagir dated 06.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/38.
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 8 of 27
40.True copy of mechanical inspection dated 06.08.2019 of offending vehicle is Ex.PW1/39.
41. Statement of motor mechanic MT Suraj Bhan is Ex.PW1/40.
42. Certified copy of final report chargesheet dated 30.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/41.
43. True copy of statement on affidavit dated 09.03.2021 of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Rohilla is Ex.PW1/42.
8. Besides this, one Mohit Goyal has already been examined in respect of the facts regarding income of the deceased.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has not examined any defence.
10.I have heard the arguments at bar and gone through the evidence brought and examined by the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
11.It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 9 of 27 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.
12.In the present case, admittedly the accident has not been disputed.
The main thrust of the respondent counsel is that in the present case, no eye witness has been examined by the petitioner, so that the manner of the accident be proved that the accident has been occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. So far so regarding the income of the deceased is concerned, MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 10 of 27 respondent counsel has argued empathetically that no detail has been furnished by the respondent regarding the heads of the salary of the deceased. Only three cheques have been given by the M3M India Private Limited, Foundation Division, Sector-66, Gurugram where the deceased was employed.
13.So far so the arguments of the respondent counsel is concerned regarding proving the manner of the accident, that has not been denied. It is not necessary to examine the eye witness in each and every case particularly when the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no. 1. As per the content of the FIR which has been lodged on the very next date, eye witness before the police has narrated the sequence of the event. He was security officer employed in the same company and was going along with the deceased on their respective motorcycle. Deceased was hit and he was the person who had got admitted the deceased in the hospital. Therefore, there is nothing which can be disbelieved that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent act of driving of the offending vehicle. MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 11 of 27 Deceased was dragged according to the eye witness quite for a considerable distance.
14.The emphasis of the counsel for the respondent is that the MLC produced before the police have mentioned RTA (unknown mechanism) near Ghata Pull at around 07.15 pm Patient first taken to Kirti Hospital and no record has been produced to the Kirti Hospital is concerned, that has no merit because of the narration given by the eye witness before the police who had got admitted the deceased in the hospital.
Therefore, this issue stands proved in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 2
15.Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened. MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 12 of 27
16.The petitioner being the legal representative 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 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amount shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Loss of funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
17.So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 13 of 27 whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Therefore, in the present case, petitioner being the mother and father of the deceased is entitled to consortium. Therefore, on the following heads, compensation is to be awarded:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
2 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
3 Loss of consortium 80,000/-
[40,000/- x 2]
18. 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 MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 14 of 27 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.
19. Here the deceased was married. However, PW 1 deposed that unfortunately his son was divorced legally vide first motion order Ex. PW 1/8 and second motion order Ex. PW 1/9 after Rs. 8 Lakh paid through FIRs (Rs. 4 lakh for wife and Rs. 4 lakh for son) in full and final settlement including life long maintenance etc. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has stated that since the deceased got divorced from the first wife and he had not re-married, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses shall be of the half of the income which is to be assessed by this court. However, the MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 15 of 27 arguments in this regard is not tenable because of the fact that the son who was born out of the wedlock of the deceased son of the petitioner and his wife is still alive. Though, Rs. 4 lakh have been taken at the time of divorce for maintaining a child, but the child's right from the father's estate cannot be taken away by any agreement. Child become major can claim his share towards the father's estate. Moreover, petitioner cannot be said to be the bachelor in any manner. A person after marriage and divorce becomes more mature and would not lead a lavish life, rather than particularly when his parents is alive, he should more concederate about his family. Therefore, 1/3rd only is to be deducted towards personal expenses.
20.As per the driving license, the age of the deceased was 42 Years and 8 Months at the time of accident. Hence, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 42 years 8 months. Therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '14'.
21.PW-1, the father of the deceased stated that her deceased son was MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 16 of 27 employed as Office manager Administration in a reputed company M/S M3M India Private Limited, foundation Division at Cosmopolitan 12th Floor, Golf Course Road, Extension, Sector 66, Gurugram on permanent basis and was earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. He has placed on record the copy of the cheques amounting to Rs. 45,000/- each for the month of April, 2019, May, 2019, June, 2019. However, no source of income has been mentioned as to in which heads the salary has been granted. No appointment letter, attendance record and salary slip etc from the employer office of the deceased has been placed on record. Since, no document has been filed in regard to employment of the deceased. However, considering the above facts, at least we would presume that he would earn atleast Rs. 35,000/- per month if not Rs. 45,000/- per month because of his qualification and experience, then, he must have been earning Rs. 35,000/- towards the heads of net salary. Hence, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 35,000/- per month for the assessment of the future loss of income.
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 17 of 27
22.Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. The deceased was below 50 years of age therefore, an addition of 25% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 43,750/- (Rs. 35,000/- + 35,000/- x 25/ 100). Legal heirs i.e., petitioner no.1 to 2 can be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased being the mother and father of the deceased. Therefore, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 29,167/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 49,00,056/- (Rs. 29,167/- x 12 x 14). I therefore, award Rs. 49,00,056/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
23.In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 18 of 27 compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs. 49,00,056.00
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15,000.00
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs. 80,000.00
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15,000.00
=============
TOTAL =Rs. 50,10,056.00
=============
RELIEF
24.In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.50,10,056/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Ten Thousand Fifty Six only) to petitioner/ Legal Heirs Devki Devi and Ishwar Lal as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. RELEASE OF AWARD AMOUNT IN THE DEATH CASE OF MANOJ KUMAR (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 /Smt. Devki Devi, the mother of the deceased)
25.A sum of Rs. 25,05,028/- alongwith the proportionate interest is MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 19 of 27 awarded to the petitioner no.1 being the mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 02 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 04 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 05 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 06 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 07 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 09 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 1 /Sh. Ishwar Lal, the father of the deceased)
26.A sum of Rs. 25,05,028/- alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being the mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 01 year.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 02 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 04 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 05 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 06 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 07 years.
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 20 of 27
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 09 years.
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
27.It is ordered that no amount shall be released to the petitioner unless he produces his passbook in the Tribunal having the endorsement that "no cheque book and no ATM Card has been issued and will not be issued to the petitioner till the entire award amount is exhausted".
28.In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
29.The respondent no.2 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 MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 21 of 27 provided to the Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
30. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
31.MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP).
32.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 :-
33.The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
34.Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
35.No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 22 of 27 permission of this Court.
36.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant along-with the photocopy of the FDR's .
37.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
38.No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
39.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
40.On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
41.Petitioner/claimant 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.
42.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
43.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 claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 23 of 27
44.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, 41125-41127/2017 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 his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch. DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3
45.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.
46.The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award along-with 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 MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 24 of 27 identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
47.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.
48.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.
49.The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 19.11.2022.
FORM IV-A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD Date of accident : 03.08.2019 Name of the deceased : Manoj Kumar Age of the deceased : 42 Years 8 Months Occupation of the : Private job.
Income of the deceased : Rs. 35,000/- per month. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 25 of 27
S. No. Name Age (at the Relation
time of
accident)
1. Devki Devi 66 Years Mother
2. Ishwar Lal 70 Years Father
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
3 Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 35,000/-
4 Add - Future Prospects (B) Rs. 8,750/-
5 Less - Personal expenses of the Rs. 14,583/-
deceased (C)
6 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 29,167/-
[(A+B)-C = D]
7 Annual loss of dependency Rs. 3,50,004/-
(Dx12)
8 Multiplier (E) '14'
9 Total loss of dependency Rs. 49,00,056/-
(Dx12xE=F)
10 Medical Expenses (G) --------
11 Compensation for Loss of Rs. 80,000/-
Consortium (H)
12 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
(I)
13 Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses (J)
MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 26 of 27
14 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 50,10,056/-
(F+G+H+I+J= K)
15 RATE OF INTEREST 7%
AWARDED
16 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 9,65,234/-
award (M)
17 Total amount including interest Rs. 59,75,290/-
(M+O)
18 Award amount released Rs. 19,75,290/-
19 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 40,00,000/-
20 Mode of disbursement of the Some amount is kept in the shape
award amount to the claimant of FDR and some amount is
(s). directed to be released.
21 Date for compliance 14.10.2022 Pronounced in the open Court, on 19th October, 2022 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) Presiding Officer : MACT (S) Saket Courts : New Delhi MACT No. 32/20;
Devki Devi and anr. Vs Sagir & ors. 19.10.2022 Page No. 27 of 27