Delhi District Court
Om Prakash And Ors vs Surya Bhan Singh on 13 December, 2023
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 1 of 35
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No.401-2018
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW01-005847-2018
1. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Tara Chand Yadav
(Father of deceased)
2. Smt. Laxmi Devi @ Laxmi Devi Yadav W/o Sh. Om Prakash
(Mother of deceased)
3. Sh. Jagat Singh S /o Sh. Om Prakash
(Brother of the deceased)
All R/o WZ-638, Madipur Village, Paschim Vihar,
S.O. West, Delhi.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Surya Bhan Singh S/o Sh. Raj Bahadur,
R/o Village Mainaha, Post Bhadohi,
PS Anchal Ganj, Unnao, U.P.
....... Driver /R1
2. Army Truck
Bearing registration No.05D-166509Y
Make Ashoka Leyland (Truck)
........ Owner/R2
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.06.2018
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13.12.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2023
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 1 of 35
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 2 of 35
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH and ORS.
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 05.06.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 02.06.2018
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 02.06.2018
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 02.06.2018
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 02.06.2018
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 02.06.2018
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Without insurance
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Without insurance
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 2 of 35
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 3 of 35
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Without insurance
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Without insurance
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Without insurance
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer Without insurance
of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 13.12.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 15.04.2019
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 13.12.2021
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sh. Om
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Prakash, savings bank
IFSC Code a/c No.40597184396,
Smt. Laxmi Devi @
Laxmi Devi Yadav,
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 3 of 35
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 4 of 35
savings bank a/c
No.40616415421 and
Sh. Jagat Singh,
savings bank a/c
No.40616092735,all
with SBI, Rohini
District Courts, Delhi
IFSC :SBIN0010323
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 41065170303,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed on 02.06.2018 with reference to FIR No.258/17 registered at PS Subhash Place in respect of commission of offences of causing grievous hurt and death not amounting to culpable homecide by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/338/304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the commission of aforementioned offences of causing grievous hurt and death not amounting to culpable homicide by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable u/s 279/338/304-A IPC against Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 4 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 5 of 35 driver, namely, Surya Bhan was also filed in respect of fatal injuries sustained by victim Sh. Hemant (hereinafter referred to as the deceased/victim) and grievous injuries sustained by one Sarla (paternal aunt/bua) of Hemant in a road traffic accident. The learned predecessor Court had vide order dated 02.06.2018 treated the DAR as a petition u/s 166(4) of the M.V. Act).
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from DAR/documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants) are that on 05.06.2017, victim Hemant was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8S-BU-1143 from his residence at Village Madipur to Loni traffic intersection (GC) for helping his paternal aunt Bua Sarla in boarding a bus to her matrimonial home at Village and Post Office Dolcha, PS Baleni, District Baghpat, U.P, however, at about 6:45 pm, upon reaching near Netaji Subhash Place, one Army Truck bearing registration No.05D-166509Y (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) had come from behind which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had over taken their vehicle before its driver Surya Bhan (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1) had suddenly applied brakes after coming in front of their motorcycle due to which their motorcycle had got struck against the back side of the Army Truck and had gone underneath its body. As a consequence of collision of their motorcycle against the back side of the offending truck, victims Hemant and Sarla had sustained injuries for treatment of which they were removed to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where victim Hemant was medically Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 5 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 6 of 35 examined vide MLC No. 1351/2017, containing a finding to the effect that he had sustained grievous injuries including lacerated wound on chin of size 4 cm x 5 cm and abrasion over right side of lower chest. Victim Hemant had subsequently expired during the course of the treatment on 05.06.2017 itself at about 8:45 am.
2.1 The postmortem on the body of deceased Hemant was conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar, M.D Forensic Medicine, Senior Resident, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Dr. BSA Hospital), Delhi vide PMR No. 386/2017 dated 05.06.2017 containing a finding to the effect that death of victim had occurred due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to the multiple trauma sustained by the body of the deceased. Besides, as per the report of autopsy surgeon, all injuries detected in the body of the deceased were antemortem in nature, that is, had occurred immediately prior to death of the victim and were fresh in duration. Also, it had been observed in the report of autopsy surgeon that the injuries sustained by the victim appeared to have been caused by blunt force/surface impact and could have been sustained in a road traffic accident as alleged in the case history.
3. Learned counsel for R1 and R2 had jointly filed their written statement mentioning therein that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and had concealed material facts from the court. Besides, it was a defence of the respondents that the claim filed by the claimants was highly exaggerated and without any basis as the accident had occurred due to fault and negligence of the victim himself who was driving his motorcycle at an excessive speed. It was also averred in the written statement of R1 and R2 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 6 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 7 of 35 that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in the lane meant for heavy vehicles in which the army truck was being plied and the bike of the deceased had hit into the left rear side of the army truck at a high speed due to the fault of the deceased himself.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 22.01.2019:-
(1) Whether on 05.06.2017 at about 7:00 am, at Ring Road towards Azadpur in front of Subhash Place Depot, Delhi, one truck bearing registration No. 05D-166509Y, which was being driven by Sh. Surya Bhan, hit the motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8S-BV-1143, and caused the death of Hemant? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) Relief.
5. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had examined three witnesses in support of their case. Sh. Om Prakash, father of the deceased had been examined as PW-1. Smt. Sarla, injured-cum-bua of the deceased had been examined as PW-2 and Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Team Leader, Adecco, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been examined as PW3. No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
6. A perusal of court record reveals that R1/driver of the offending vehicle had examined himself in support of his version of the case. No other Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 7 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 8 of 35 witness had been examined by R1.
7. A perusal of court record reveals that R2/owner of the offending vehicle had not examined any witness in support of its version of the case.
8. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Vichitar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for R1 and R2. My issue-wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
9. Issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUES No. 1(1) Whether on 05.06.2017 at about 7:00 am, at Ring Road towards Azadpur in front of Subhash Place Depot, Delhi, one truck bearing registration No. 05D-166509Y, which was being driven by Sh. Surya Bhan, hit the motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8S-BV-1143, and caused the death of Hemant? OPP The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/ claimants.
9.1 The petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had examined three witnesses in support of their case. Sh. Om Prakash, father of the deceased had been examined as PW-1. Smt. Sarla, injured-cum-bua of the deceased had been examined as PW-2 and Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Team Leader, Adecco, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been examined as PW3. No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
9.2 PW1 had deposed by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1, wherein he had Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 8 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 9 of 35 reiterated the facts mentioned in the DAR, regarding occurrence of the case accident on 05.06.2017, when his deceased son was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8S-BV-1143 along with his aunt Sarla (Bua) as a pillion rider, who were both wearing helmets at the relevant time. He deposed that on that day at about 6:45 am, upon reaching near Netaji Subhash Palace, all of a sudden one Army vehicle bearing registration No. 05D-166509 make Ashoka Leyland (Truck), which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner without adhering to the traffic rules had suddenly over taken the motorcycle of his deceased son, after which the driver of the said truck had applied brakes suddenly and rashly, due to which the motorcycle of his son had gone inside the truck whereas his deceased son and his sister had fell down on the road side due to which his son and his sister had sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that for treatment of injuries sustained in the case accident, his son and his sister were both shifted to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. He further stated that at the time of accident, his deceased son was working at ADECCO INDIA PVT. LTD. as a Diploma Engineer and he was earning Rs.16,182/- per month. He had relied upon the following documents in support of the case of the petitioners.
a. The DAR, filed by the IO Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
b. Photo copy of Electrical Engineering Diploma issued by Board of Technial Education Delhi in favour of deceased Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
c. Photo copy of BCA degree pursued by the deceased Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 9 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 10 of 35d. Photo copies of educational qualifications of the deceased Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) (colly).
9.3 In his cross-examination by Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for R1 and R2, PW1 stated that he was not an eye witness of the case accident. He deposed that he was working as an EASI (exempted ASI) in Haryana Police and at the time of recording of his deposition in the court he was posted at Police Line, Rohtak, Haryana. He stated that his wife was a housewife. He further stated that his gross salary was about Rs. 62,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he had filed false and forged certificate regarding the salary of the deceased. He deposed that he had intentionally not filed a copy of bank passbook of the deceased as no salary was ever received in bank account of the deceased. He stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was driving a motorcycle which was registered in his own name and was duly insured at the time of accident. He deposed that he had already received the compensation from the insurance company to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh qua the death of his son as personal accident claim which policy was issued at the time of getting the said motorcycle insured. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance or Rs. 1 lakh on funeral expenses. He admitted that he was earning at the time of accident of the deceased and that he was not financially dependent upon the deceased. He voluntarily stated that the deceased used to contribute to the household expenses. He stated that his another son, namely, Mr. Jagat Singh was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was studying at that time. He denied the suggestion that as he was earning hence he used to pay for the educational expenses of Mr. Jagat Singh or that Mr. Jagat Singh Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 10 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 11 of 35 was not dependent upon the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the entire expenses of Mr. Jagat Singh were being borne by him or that Mr. Jagat Singh was not dependent upon the deceased for his any expenditure. He deposed that the name of his wife was Smt. Laxmi Devi, who was a housewife. He denied the suggestion that his wife was dependent upon his income or that she was not dependent upon the income of deceased. He voluntarily stated that he used to deposit his income in the savings account to save it for purchasing a plot and the majority of the household expenses were being borne by the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that no other family members were dependent upon the deceased as no such proof was put on record by him. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working anywhere or that he was not earning anything. 9.4 Smt. Sarla W/o Sh. Krishan, who had been examined as PW2 deposed that on the fateful day of accident, that is, on 05.06.2017, she was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.DL8S-BV-1143 along with her nephew, who was driving the said motorcycle and she was sitting as a pillion rider. She deposed that on that day, at about 6:45 am, when they reached near Netaji Subhash Palace, all of a sudden one Army Vehicle bearing registration No.05D-166509Y make Ashoka Leyland (Truck), which was being by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner without adhering to the traffic rules, had over taken their motorcycle, after which the driver of the said truck had applied brake suddenly and rashly, due to which their motorcycle had gone inside (beneath) the truck and she along with her nephew had fell down on the road side and had thereby sustained grievous injuries for treatment of which they were both shifted to Fortis Hospital, Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 11 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 12 of 35 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No.1352/17, containing a finding to the effect that she had sustained grievous injuries due to fracture of distal end of radius in right wrist. She deposed that she had spent an amount of Rs. 100/- per day for three months as attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- as medical charges -cum-charges incurred on healthy diet. She further deposed that she had spent another amount of Rs.5,000/- as conveyance charges for travel to various hospitals during her treatment period and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on her physiotherapy. She relied upon the DAR, filed by the IO as Ex.PW1/1 (colly). 9.5 In her cross-examination by Sh. Abishek Kaushik, learned counsel for R1 and R2, PW2 stated that she was illiterate and could only put her signatures in Hindi. She further stated that her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A was prepared by her counsel upon her instructions and she knew its contents. She further deposed that she was a resident of U.P and the accident had occurred at Delhi and hence she was not aware about the name or location of the road where the said accident had occurred. She deposed that there was substantial traffic on the road in question at the time of accident and the deceased was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed, however, she was not in a position to tell the exact speed of motorcycle of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was driving his motorcycle at a very high speed and had caused the case accident due to rash and negligent driving of his motorcycle. She denied the suggestion that she was not wearing a helmet at the time of her accident. She voluntarily clarified that she herself as well as deceased Hemant were wearing helmets. She deposed that police officials had visited her residence after the accident.
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 12 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 13 of 35She, however, expressed her inability to recall the number of documents which she had signed at the instance of the police official. She admitted that in photographs Ex.PW2/R-X1 and Ex.PW2/R-X2 only one helmet was visible which was lying on the seat of the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8S-BV-1143. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in the wrong lane at the time of accident despite being confronted with site plan Ex.PW2/R-X3. She further denied the suggestion that her medical bills and medical documents were forged and fabricated documents. She admitted that motorcycle being driven by the deceased had struck against the military truck at the back side. She denied the suggestion that the alleged offending military truck was being driven in the correct lane or that the said truck was following all the rules and regulations and the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent and high speed driving of his motorcycle by the deceased. 9.6 PW3 Sandeep Kumar, Team Leader, Adecco, Karol Bagh, Delhi produced the summoned record, that is, appointment letter of deceased Hemant Kumar Yadav Ex.PW3/1 and his salary slip Ex.PW3/2. 9.7 In his cross-examination by Sh. Shyam Kharbanda, Learned proxy counsel for Sh. Abhishek Kaushik, Learned counsel for R1 and R2, PW3 deposed that deceased Hemant Kumar Yadav was not getting any travel allowance from his employer. He stated that the deceased had joined Adecco as a diploma engineer on 07.05.2015 on contractual basis for one year and his contract was likely to be extended on yearly basis. He stated that on the date of his death, that is, 05.06.2017 victim Hemant Kumar Yadav was still working as a diploma engineer in the said company. He Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 13 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 14 of 35 deposed that the total monthly salary of the deceased for the monthly of May, 2017 was Rs. 16,182/- and no TDS had been deducted on the same as the same was not amenable to tax. He clarified that the contract of the deceased would have expired in the year 2018 and the salary of the deceased was being paid through deposit in bank account of the deceased bearing account no.13590150930. He stated that the contract for any employee had not been extended after June, 2018 and the contract of deceased vide which he was to report before BSES RPL would have also expired and not extended after June, 2018.
9.8 The respondents had examined R1W1 Sh. Surya Bhan S/o Raj Bahadur, driver of the offending vehicle by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A, wherein he had reiterated his defence to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of his motorcycle by victim Hemant himself. He relied upon the following documents in support of his testimony:-
1. Photographs of the vehicle of the victim Ex.R1W1/1.
2. Copy of log book of the alleged offending vehicle and copy of his driving licence attested by his department Ex.R1W1/2 (colly). 9.9 In his cross-examination by Sh. Vichitar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, R1W1 deposed that at the time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by him and was not on war duty. He stated that his vehicle was seized by the police in the present matter. He denied the suggestion that he was driving his vehicle without obeying the traffic rules at the time of accident. He admitted that a criminal case was lodged against him in respect of the case accident.Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 14 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 15 of 35
9.10 No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the cross examination of PW2 Sarla to discredit her above said testimony which were capable of demolishing the case of the petitioners to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the death of victim Hemant had occasioned therefrom.
The testimony of PW2 is reliable and she is a trustworthy witness whose deposition has remained infallible during her lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondents. The testimony of R1W1 Surya Bhan is on the other hand not trustworthy as he had not made any complaint to higher police authorities or to any court regarding his alleged false implication in the present matter.
9.11 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record including charge sheet and testimony of PW2, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1 who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the above said date, time and place and had suddenly applied brakes after overtaking the motorcycle of the victim thereby causing the motorcycle of the victim to get struck against the backside of the offending truck and thereafter go underneath the body of the said truck resulting in death of victim Hemant.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
10. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 15 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 16 of 35 so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 10.1 In view of my findings on issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of demise of the victim Hemant in the above mentioned road traffic accident, I shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled. 10.2 Petitioners have examined three witnesses in support of their version of the case including PW-1 Om Prakash, who was the father of the deceased and has made deposition regarding the employment and income of the deceased at the time of his demise by stating that deceased was getting Rs. 16,182/- per month as salary by working as a diploma engineer in Adecco India Pvt. Ltd.
10.3 PW2 Sarla was the victim-cum-eye witness in the present case, who had categorically stated that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 Surya Bhan, who had suddenly applied brakes after over taking their motorcycle, thereby causing their motorcycle to collide against the back side of the truck of R1 before going underneath the body of the said truck.
10.4 PW3 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Team Leader, Adecco, Karol Bagh had reaffirmed in his deposition that the deceased was working as a diploma engineer in his company and produced the appointment letter as well as salary slip of the deceased.
10.5 Upon perusal of record produced by PW3 Sandeep Kumar, it is Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 16 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 17 of 35 evident that deceased Hemant had received salary to the tune of Rs. 16,182/- for the month of May, 2017, that is, in the month prior to the occurrence of the case accident and in the said month, no tax was deducted from the abovementioned salary credited in the bank account of deceased Hemant as his salary was not assessable to income tax. Thus, the net salary of the deceased in the month immediately preceding his death was Rs. 16,182/-. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs.16,182/- per month on the date of occurrence of the case accident in question, that is on 05.06.2017.
10.6 Also as per the Secondary School Examination, Certificate of deceased Hemant, issued by CBSE, the date of birth of deceased is 22.10.1989 and the case accident had occurred on 05.06.2017. Therefore, the deceased was about 27 years 07 months and 13 days old at the time of the occurrence of the accident in question.
11. Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made 11.1 In this regard, reference should be made to the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
11.2 In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia held as under:-
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 17 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 18 of 35
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(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 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.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 18 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 19 of 35(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 11.3 In the case in hand, the deceased was salaried private sector employee and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
11.4 In the present case, as discussed above, the deceased was aged about 27 years 07 months and 13 days at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to addition of 40% as future prospects to his established income as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of his death.
11.5 The monthly income of the deceased after addition of future prospects is thus calculated as Rs.22,654.8/- (monthly income of Rs. 16,182 +40 % of monthly income i.e Rs. 6,472.8/- = Rs. 22,654.8/-)
12. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
12.1 Claimants are the parents and younger brother of the deceased.
However, father of the deceased was employed as an exempted ASI in Haryana Police and was capable of maintaining his younger son namely Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 19 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 20 of 35 Jagat Singh and therefore, the said Jagat Singh cannot be considered to be financially dependent upon deceased Hemant who was his elder brother. Therefore, as such the deceased was survived by two legal heirs, who were his parents.
12.2 Also, the testimony of PW1 Om Prakash, father of the deceased establishes that one of the claimants, that is, father of the deceased was gainfully employed as an exempted ASI in Haryana Police whereas the other claimant, that is, the mother of the deceased was financially totally dependent on her husband as well as her deceased son.
12.3 The learned counsel for R1 and R2 has opposed the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation towards financial dependency upon the deceased on the ground that the father of the deceased was gainfully employed at the time of demise of victim Hemant due to the case accident and therefore none of the claimants/petitioners were financially dependents upon the deceased.
12.4 I am not in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for R1 and R2. In this context, it is trite law that even if parents of a bachelor are not financially dependent upon their deceased child at the time of his or her accident, they are likely to become emotionally as well as financially dependent upon their deceased child with the passage of time due to old age related loss of earning capacity and physical well being. 12.5 It has been similarly held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indrawati & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Singh & Ors. MAC. APP No.623/2019 decided on 08.01.2021 that the parents of a deceased/victim of road traffic accident must be considered as dependents on their deceased Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 20 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 21 of 35 child even if the parents were not actually dependent on their deceased child at the time of occurrence of the accident in question because after reaching a certain age the parents of a deceased victim of road traffic accident were likely to become financially dependent upon their child due to their old age and loss of earning capacity. Observations made in paras 12, 20 and 23 of the judgment are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced hereinbelow:-
12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the deceased are considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain themselves and the law imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of the accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.
20. In view of the law well settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court holds that the parents of the deceased child are considered as dependents for computation of compensation. The principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak v. Pritam Singh, ILR (2010) 5 Del 463, would not apply to the claim for compensation by the parents in respect of their child, as it is in the present case. The principles relating to the loss to the estate referred to in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak (supra) would also not apply in respect of the claim of a spouse for compensation in respect of death of his/her spouse, as well as children's claim for compensation in respect of death of their parents. In that view of the matter, the principles relating to the loss to the estate shall apply only to claimants other than parents, children and spouse.
23. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,131/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 21 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 22 of 35 personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.6,24,607.20. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses which is upheld. The total compensation is computed as Rs.6,80,000/- (Rs.6,79,607.20 rounded off).
12.6 Moreover, it is also trite law that although the parents of a deceased bachelor victim of a road traffic accident are entitled to compensation as dependents upon the deceased, however, being bachelor, the deceased is considered likely to save at least half of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining half of his income to the maintenance of his parents.
12.7 In the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009)6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that when a bachelor expires in a road traffic accident, his mother would be entitled to compensation regarding loss of dependency even if the father of the deceased bachelor was gainfully employed as on the date of occurrence of the alleged accident and it shall be presumed that the bachelor would spent 50% of his income on his personal needs and would contribute the remaining 50% to his mother and her household needs. The relevant extract of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 15 of the judgment is noteworthy in this context and is reproduced hereunder:-
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 22 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 23 of 35 contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
12.8 Applying the ratio of above cited observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Indrawati and Anr. (Supra) and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), it can be safely concluded that even if the father of a deceased victim of the road traffic accident was gainfully employed at the time of demise of the victim, however, in advanced stage of their life the parents of the deceased were likely to become financially as well as emotionally dependent upon the deceased and therefore the parents of the deceased were also entitled to claim compensation as dependents upon the deceased under Motor Vehicles Act. 12.9 In the present case as well, the mother of the deceased shall be considered as dependent upon the deceased despite the fact that her husband, that is, the father of the deceased was gainfully employed as an exempted ASI in Haryana Police at the time of demise of the victim due to the case accident. Moreover, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as 50% as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 23 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 24 of 35 Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008, date of judgment 15.04.2009 as upheld in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 12.10 Thus, in the present matter the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, he is likely to spare half of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining half of his income to the household expenses maintenance of his family members i.e. his parents.
13. Selection of multiplier:
13.1 As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 27 years, 07 months and 13 days at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no.
61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "17" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
14. Loss of financial dependency 14.1 In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs. 23,10,789.6/- [i.e. Rs.22,654.8/ - (per month income of the deceased) X12 X17 (multiplier) X 1/2 (dependency)].
15. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads/conventional heads:
15.1 In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61
(viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/-
towards loss to the estate of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 24 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 25 of 35 expenses.
16. Consortium{SpousalConsortium/ParentalConsortium/Filial Consortium} 16.1 The deceased was unmarried and the petitioners/claimants are his parents and his younger brother. It is now a settled law in terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, date of decision 18.09.2018: 2018(8) SCJ 338:2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Uttrakhand Transport Corporation Vs. Jyoti Sardana, MAC.APP.920/2017, date of decision 03.04.2019 that the compensation under the head of consortium is required to be awarded to all the claimants to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- each. In the present case, there are three claimants who are the mother, father and younger brother of the deceased, hence, Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 3) is being granted as compensation under the said head. My views in this regard are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Manorama Aggarawal and Ors., MAC.APP. 250/2015, decided on 09.01.2020 and Om Prakash and Ors vs Ved Prakash and Anr, MAC.APP 114/2019 date of decision 28.01.2020. My views are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410.
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 25 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 26 of 3517. LOSS OF LOVE and AFFECTION 17.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the latest case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 after referring to its another decision of three-judge bench in case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410 inter alia held as follows :
"34. The Three-Judge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the expression 'consortium' to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that 'loss of love and affection' is comprehended in 'loss of consortium', hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' as a separate head.
35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection'.
......................................................................................... ......................................................................................... .........................................................................................
47. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The award of compensation under the conventional head 'loss of love and affection' is set aside........................"
17.2 In view of the abovesaid discussion and the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093- Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 26 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 27 of 35 3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410, no amount of compensation can be awarded under the said head of 'loss of love and affection'. Hence, no amount is being granted under the said head.
18. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 23,10,789.6/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Rs. Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 24,60,789.6/-
________________
[Rounded off to Rs.24,60,790/-]
(Rupees Twenty four Lacs sixty Thousand Seven hundred ninety Only). 18.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 02.06.2018 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7% Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 27 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 28 of 35 per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 02.06.2018 till realisation of the compensation amount.
18.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
19. Liability 19.1 In the case in hand, the R2 Army/Northern Command vehicle Depot. 9th Battalion, Rajputana Rifles, C/o 56 APO (as per the DAR) has not been able to show anything on record to the effect that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was a government vehicle belonging to Indian Army, therefore the same was not required to be insured by any Insurance company and the concerned department i.e. R2 Army/Northern Command vehicle Depot. 9 th Battalion, Rajputana Rifles, C/o 56 APO is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
19.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., R2 Army/Northern Command vehicle Depot. 9th Battalion, Rajputana Rifles, C/o 56 APO is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.24,60,790/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocates and to Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 28 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 29 of 35 show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
20. Joint statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 13.12.2021 and 13.04.2022 regarding their savings bank a/c with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
20.1 It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, an amount of Rs. 12,30,395/- each be given to petitioners nos. 1 and Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 29 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 30 of 35 2, who are the father and the mother of the deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,30,395/- each be released to petitioners nos. 1 to 2 in their respective bank accounts Nos. 40823516444 (Sh. Om Prakash Yadav) and bank a/c no. 40616415421 (Laxmi Devi @ Laxmi Devi Yadav) both maintained with SBI, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, that is, the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period from 1 month to 72 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
20.2 It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 30 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 31 of 35
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
21. Relief 21.1 As discussed above, R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 24,60,790/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 02.06.2018 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 31 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 32 of 35 R2 to the petitioner and their advocate failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. 21.2 R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. 21.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 2 for compliance within the granted time.
21.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non- receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details- Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
21.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 32 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 33 of 35 Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 13.12.2021 and 13.04.2022 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
22. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
on 13 December, 2023 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 33 of 35
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 34 of 35
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 05.06.2017
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Hemant
3. Age of the deceased: About 27 years 7 months and 13 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Diploma Engineer in Adecco India Pvt. Ltd.
5. Income of the deceased: - Rs.16,182/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Om Parkash Yadav 55 years Father
(ii) Smt. Laxmi Devi 53 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.16,182/-(as per salary
slip)
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 6472.8/-(after
rounding of)
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/2th (Rs.22,654.8/-)
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.11,327.4/-
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,35,928.8/-
12. Multiplier (E) 1713. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs. 23,10,789.6/-
F) Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 34 of 35 Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 35 of 35
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,20,000/- (40,000x3) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.24,60,789.6/- (after (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) rounding of Rs.24,60,790)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7% Interest amount up to the date of Rs.7,80,412.08/- (rounded award (M) 21 off Rs.7,80,413/-)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.32,41,202.08 (rounded (L+M) off Rs.32,41,203/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.2,60,790/- to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.29,80,413/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 12.01.2024 award. (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) on 13 December, 2023 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Om Prakash Vs. Surya Bhan & Ors. Page 35 of 35