Delhi District Court
Ms. Poonam (Wife) vs Sh. Dharamvir (Driver) on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO MACT01 (SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 435/2018
FIR No. 0059/2018
PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, Haryana
CNR No. DLSW010091702018
1. Ms. Poonam (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot,
2. Nikhil (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot,
3. Dimply (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot,
4. Anshu Gahlot (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot,
5. Smt. Battan Devi (Mother)
W/o Sh.Same Chand
6. Sh.Same Chand (Father)
S/o. Late Sh. Subh Ram
All R/o. H. No. 439, Bichala Pana, VPO Mitraon, Najafgarh
South West Delhi 110043 ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Dharamvir (driver)
S/o Sh. Satnarayan
R/o 42, Main Border Road,
Village Bakkaegarh
PS Jafar Pur Delhi110073
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar (Owner)
S/o. Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o. H. No. 504/1, VPO Daulatabad,
PS Rajendra Park, District Gurugram,
Haryana122001
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 1
3. The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
Lotus Towers, First Floor, Community Centre,
New Firends Colony,
New Delhi110025 ... Respondents
Date of institution 27.04.2018
Date of judgment - 31.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for grant of compensation has been filed qua death of deceased Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot caused in a road accident which took place on 27.02.2018.
2. CLAIM:
The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 27.02.2018, the deceasedSh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot along with his brotherSh.Vikram Singh and relatives Sh. Manish and Sh. Anil were travelling in Swift Dzire Car no. DL2CAY3681 which was being driven by Sh. Vikram Singh and deceased Sunder Singh was sitting in the front seat beside the driver's seat and other passengers Sh. Manish and Sh. Anil were sitting in the back seat of the Swift Dzire car and they were proceedings towards their residence at VPO Mitraon Delhi from Fatehpur Jaurasi Haryana after meeting to their relative Sh. Jaswant Singh at Fatehpur Jaurasi Village near P.S.Bilaspur, District Gurugram,Haryana. They left Fatehpur at 12.30 PM when they (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 2 reached at Jaurasi Village near Government hospital Bandh PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, Haryana then a Mahindra Scorpio car bearing Registration no. HR26CM7952 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) which was driven by respondent no. 1Sh. Dharamvir in very negligent and rash manner at very high speed in contrary to traffic rules came from front side and taking a sharp turn, violently hit the side of Swift Dzire car no. DL2CAY3681 with a great force. After the collision, the swift Dzire car No.DL2CAY3681 take a violent turn and hit an electric pole. The window of the deceased Sunder Singh side suddenly opened and deceased Sunder Singh received injuries on head due to struck against the electric pole and he fell down on the road and the sustained serious/grievous injuries all over his bodies. The window of the driver's side got damage and the driver Vikram Singh was thrown on the road and other passengers Manish and Anil also sustained serious/grievous injuries all over their bodies. After causing the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped his offending car for a few minutes and after seeing the crowd started gathering there, he fled away from the place of accident along with offending vehicle. The deceased along with injured persons Manish and Anil were removed to Civil Hospital Gurugram hospital in another vehicle, with the help of Sh. Jaswant Singh and other persons from the place of the accident got admitted there. The deceased Sh. Sunder Singh died due to sustained serious/grievous injuries by him in the accident at the spot of (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 3 accident. Postmortem was conducted at Civil Hospital Gurugram vide PM Report no.PKC/44/18 dated 28.02.2018.
It is also stated that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident in rash and negligent manner.
It is also stated that the time of accident, deceased was 39 year old and was possessing sound health and good physique at the time of his accident. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as driver with Sh. Sanjeev Srivastava at N7, Flat No. 6, Narmada Apartment, D6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and was getting Rs. 20,000/ P.M. and he was providing Rs. 17,000/ P.M. to the petitioners in terms of direct financial support.
It is also stated that all the petitioners were totally dependents upon the income of the deceased.
It has been prayed that an award for a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/ (Rs. Sixty Lacs only) alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization & cost of the petition may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. DEFENCE:
Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 in which allegations levelled in the Petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that the alleged accident did not cause by the offending vehicle nor (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 4 same was being driven by respondent no. 1 and the police has registered a false case against the respondent no. 1 in respect of the alleged accident.
It is also stated that the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license No. DL0420120232348 and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no. 3The TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 3/Insurance Company in which it is stated that vehicle no. HR 26CM7952 was insured vide Policy bearing no. 015515672002 in the name of Vijay Kumar for the period commencing from 25.11.2017 to 24.11.2018 subject to certain terms and conditions of the policy.
It is also stated that if it is found that alleged offending vehicle was being plied by respondent no. 1 without holding a proper and valid driving license required for driving the car at the time of accident then only respondent no. 1 and 2 should be held jointly and severally responsible to make the payment of compensation amount, if any to the petitioner.
4. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Sunder Singh @Sunder Gahlot sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 27.2.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR26CM 7952 being driven by respondent no. 1 Dharamvir, owned by respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar and insured by respondent no. 3 Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.?...OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 5 whom ?...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove their case, the petitioners got examined Sh. Vikram Singh S/o. Sh. Samey Chand examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has relied upon photocopy of his driving licence as Ex.PW1/1.
Petitioner No. 1Poonam examined herself as PW2 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. PW2 relied upon the following documents:
S. No. of Details of Document No. Exhibits 1. Ex. PW2/1 Photocopy of Aadhar Card 2. Ex. PW2/2 Death certificate of deceased
3. Ex. PW2/3 Photocopies of Aadhar card of children and to Ex. parents of the deceased.PW2/7
4. Ex. PW2/8 Photocopies of matriculations certificate to Ex. and migration certificate for showing the PW2/9 age of deceased.
5. Ex. PW2/10 Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased.
6. Mark A Photocopy of driving licence of deceased.
7. Ex. PW2/11 Photocopy of driving badge of deceased.
8. Ex. PW2/12 Photocopy of complaint.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
It is relevant to pen down that the respondents did not come forward to lead any evidence.
The issuewise findings are as under :
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 6
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 27.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR26CM 7952 being driven by respondent no. 1 Dharamvir, owned by respondent no. 2 Vijay Kumar and insured by respondent no. 3 TATA AIG General Insurance Co.
Ltd. ?...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioners got examined Sh. Vikram Singh who claimed himself as eyewitness of the case. He testified that on 27.02.2018 in between 5.00 A.M. to 6.00 A.M. he alongwith his deceased brotherSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot with other relatives Sh. Manish and Sh. Anil were travelling in Swift Dzire car No. DL2CAY3681 which was driven by him. The deceasedSunder Singh was seating in the front seat beside the driver's seat and other passengers Sh. Manish and Sh. Anil were seating in the back seat of of the Swift Dzire Car. They were proceeding towards their residence at Delhi from Fatehpur Jaurasi Haryana after meeting to their (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 7 relativeSh. Jaswant Singh at Fatehpur Jaurasi Village near P.S. Bilaspur, DisttGurugram, Haryana they left Fatehpur at 12.30 P.M to 1.00 P.M. and when they reached at near Government Hospital, Bandh, P.S.Bilaspur, DisttGurugram, Haryana then a Mahindra Scorpio car its bearing Regd. No. HR26 CM 7952 being driven by the respondent no. 1Sh. Dharamvir at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without observing proper look out, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from front side and taking a sharp turn, violently hit the side of Swift Dzire Car No. DL2CAY3681 with a great force. After this collision, the Swift Dzire Car No. DL2CAY3681 take a violent turn and hit an electric pole after this impact, the window of the deceased Sunder Singh side suddenly opened and deceased Sunder Singh received serious injuries on his head and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over his bodies. The window of his side (Driver's side) got damaged and he fell on the road and other passengers Manish and Anil also sustained serious/grievous injuries all over their bodies. After this accident, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped his offending car for few minutes and after seeing the crowd started gathering there he fled away from the place of accident alongwith offending Mahindra Scorpion Car. As a result of this violent impact, he took his deceased brother Sh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot alongwith other passengers Sh. Manish and Sh. Anil to Civil hospital Gurugram Hospital in another private vehicle, with (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 8 the help of Sh. Jaswant Singh and other persons from the place of the accident got admitted there. The deceased Sh. Sunder Singh ultimately died due to sustained serious/grievous injuries by him in the accident at the spot of accident. Some one person from the crowed informed the Police by his mobile phone. Police came at Civil Hospital, Gurugram and he gave the detail of himself and about the accident to Police that he had seen the accident and he can identified the driver of Scorpio Car when he come in front of him. His statement was also recorded by the police. The said accident took place solely and entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of driver Sh. Dharamvirrespondent no. 1 by the offending Mahindra Scorpio Car No. HR26CM7952.
It is worthy to note here that during crossexamination by ld. Counsel for R1 & R2, PW1Vikram Singh stated that he was present at the spot at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his own negligence.
It is relevant to pen down here that the crossexamination of PW1Vikram Singh carried on by ld. counsel for the respondents is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioners.
It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry/trial. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 9 against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. HR26CM7952.
Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely Dharamvir (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337/304(A) IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR26CM7952 by respondent no. 1.
Even otherwise, while determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 10 followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
16. This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012.
The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 11 "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that deceased Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot sustained fatal injures and died in motor accident dated 27.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. HR26CM7952 which was being driven by respondent no. 1Dharamvir, owned by respondent No. 2Vijay Kumar and insured with R3/ The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victimSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot died in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Offending vehicle bearing No. HR26CM7952 by respondent no. 1.09. ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 12 whom ? ...OPP
10. The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner No. 2 Poonam examined herself as PW02. As per her testimony, on 27.02.2018 at about 12.30 PM., her husband namely Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot met with an accident and received fatal injuries and died.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot received fatal injuries & died in motor vehicle accident dated 27.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle which was being driven by R1Dharamvir and as such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceasedSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners is ascertained under the following heads :
11. AGE & MULTIPLIER:
It is relevant to pen down here that PW02Poonam deposed that her husband was 39 years old at the time of accident and she relied upon the Ex. PW2/8 i.e. photocopy of MarkStatement of Sunder Singh allegedly issued by National Open school and Mark A i.e. photocopy of driving license and as per these, (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 13 date of birth of deceased was 11.05.1978. So, we take the age of deceasedSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot as 39 years at the time of accident.
As per the mandate of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr, a multiplier of 15 is applicable for the age of 39 years.
12. INCOME AND PROFESSION In the instant case, PW02Poonam deposed that deceased Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot was working as driver with Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava at N7, Flat No. 6, Narmada Apartment, D6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and was getting Rs.
20,000/ per month at the time of accident. She also relied upon MarkA i.e. photocopy of driving license No. DL 0920000160253. She deposed that her husband was having a valid Commercial Driving License to driver commercial vehicle and she relied upon EX. PW2/11 i.e. copy of driving Badge No. P091702586.
It is worthwhile to mention here that during cross examination, PW2 stated that she had not filed any verification report regarding driving license of her deceased husband. She denied the suggestion that copy of driving license of her husband is false and fabricated and that is the reason, she had not filed any verification report in respect of thereof.
She admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 14 regarding the employment or income of Rs. 20,000/ per month of her deceased husband.
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been placed on record to show that the deceasedSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot was working as driver and was earning Rs. 20,000/ as alleged.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that PW02 also relied upon EX PW2/8 i.e. photocopy of Mark Statement of Secondary School Examination of Sunder Singh and EX. PW2/9 i.e. photocopy of Migration Certificate of Sunder Singh.
I have also gone through the alleged educational qualification i.e. Ex. PW2/8 and EX. PW2/9 i.e. Migration Certificate. The alleged MarkSheet and Migration Certificate Sheet have been allegedly issued by National Open School.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross examination of PW02Poonam, no question has been put up by ld. Counsel for insurance company (as crossexamination conducted by ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 has been adopted by R1 and R2) regarding the alleged MarkSheet and Migration Certificate.
Therefore, in the absence of any technical qualification/, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages for Matriculate. As per the copy of Aadhar Card license of the deceasedSunder Singh, he was resident of Delhi. Hence, the minimum wages for matriculate person applicable in the (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 15 State of Delhi when the accident took place (27.02.2018) shall be considered. The same are ₹16,458/ per month.
Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi1, the deceased would also have future prospects @ 40% as he was 39 years of age at the time of accident.
13. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
It is not disputed during arguments or even otherwise that petitioner no.Poonam 1 is wife. Nikhil, Dimply and Anshu Gahlot are children and Battan Devi and Same Chand are mother and father respectively of the deceased.
So far as petitionerSame Chand (father) is concerned, he cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased in view of the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Civil Appeal no.3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8648 of 2007) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.04.2009 wherein it is held that "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. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent".1
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 16 Thus, only petitioners No. 1 to 5 will be considered dependent upon the deceased.
In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr, being married, one fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
In view of the above, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceasedSunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot can be calculated as under:.
S. HEAD AMOUNT
No.
1. Income of the deceased ₹16,458/
2 40% addition towards future Rs. 23,041.2
prospects (Rs.16,458/
+6,583.2)
3. 1/4th (one Fourth ) deduction Rs. 5,760.3 towards on personal and living expenses of deceased.
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 17,280.9 ( 23,041.2 5,760.3)
5. Total loss of dependency to the (17,280.9x12x15) = (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 17 family due to death of deceased Rs. 31,10,562/ Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceasedSh. Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot comes to Rs. 31,10,562/ (Rs. Thirty One Lakhs Ten Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Two only) and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e ₹ 31,10,562/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
15. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, a sum of ₹16,500/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
16. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi3, a sum of ₹ 16,500/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In given fact and circumstances of the case and in 2
3. (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 18 view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur4, a sum of ₹ 2,64,000/ (₹ 44,000/ x
6) is awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium'.
18. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : S. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1 Loss of dependency ₹ 31,10,562/ 2 Loss of consortium ₹ 2,64,000/ 3 For funeral expenses ₹ 16,500/ 4 Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/ TOTAL ₹ 34,07,562/ Rounded off to Rs.
34,08,000/ Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹ 34,08,000/ (Rs. Thirty Four Lakhs and Eight Thousand only).
19. INTEREST:
In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and 4 (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 19 circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e. ₹34,08,000/ (Rs. Thirty Four Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition i.e. 27.04.2018 till its realization.
20. LIABILITY:
The offending vehicle bearing no. HR26CM7952 was being driven by respondent no. 1Dharamvir, owned by respondent No. 2Vijay Kumar and insured by respondent no.3 The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. As such, respondent no. 3/ The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
21. ISSUE NO.3 (RELIEF)
26. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no.3The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay ₹34,08,000/ (Rs. Thirty Four Lakhs and Eight Thousand (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 20 only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.04.2018 till its realization within 30 days from today to the petitioners. Amount of interim compensation (if any) be deducted from this amount.
22. APPORTIONMENT:
The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹34,08,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased-Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot in the following manner with proportionate interest.
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount No.
1. Petitioner no. 1 Poonam (Wife) ₹ 20,00,000/
2. Petitioner no. 2Nikhil (Son ) ₹ 3,00,000/
3. Petitioner no. 3 Dimpy (daughter) ₹ 3,00,000/
4. Petitioner no.4Anshu Gahlot (Son) ₹ 3,00,000/
5. Battan Devi (mother) 4,64,000/
6. Same Chand (father) ₹44,000/ Total ₹34,08,000/ FORMIVA (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 21 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 27.02.2018
ii). Name of the deceased : Sunder Singh @ Sunder Gahlot
iii). Age of the deceased : 39 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the : Driver (not proved) Deceased
v). Income of the deceased : ₹ 16,458/ per month.
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased (at the time of accident) I Poonam 37 years Wife ii Nikhil 18 months Son iii Dimpy 16 years Daughter Iv Anshu Gahlot 14 years Son V Battan Devi 71 years Mother Vi Same Chand 71 years Father Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 22
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹ 16,458/ per month.
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) (40%)(A+B) ₹ 16,458/ +6583.2=23,041.2 per month
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹ 5760.3 deceased (C) (one fourth)
4. Monthly loss of dependency {(A+B} Rs. 23,041.25760.3= Rs.
C=D 17,280.9
5. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 17,280.9X12=
[ DX12] Rs.2,07,370.8
6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹ 2,07,370.8x15= Rs.
31,10,562/
8. Medical Expenses (G)
9 Compensation for loss of love and
affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹2,64,000/ (40,000 x 6) (I)
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹16,500/
12. Compensation towards funeral ₹16,500/ expenses (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹ 34,07,562/ (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rounded off to Rs.
34,08,000/
14. Deduction of Interim Award Nil RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from (M) the date of filing of petition i.e. 27.04.2018 till its realization.
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 23
16. Total amount including interest ₹34,08,000/ + @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 27.04.2018 till its realization.
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
20. Next Date for compliance of the 31.05.2023.
award. (Clause 31)
23. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondent no. 2/ National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court.
Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 24 S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . at the Award Amount N time o of accid ent (App rox.) 1 Poona Wife 37 ₹ ₹ ₹ 18,00,000/ be . m years 20,00,000/ 2,00,000/ kept in 80 FDRs of ₹ 22,500/ each for the period from 1 month to 80 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
2 Nikhil Son 18 ₹ 3,00,000/ Rs. ₹ 270,000/ be kept
. mont 30,000/ in 36 FDRs of ₹
hs 7500/ each for the
period from 1 month
to 36 months in the
name of petitioner
with cumulative
interest.
3 Dimpy Daught 16 ₹ 3,00,000/ Nil Entire amount be
er years kept in FDR till the
petitioner no. 3
attains the age of 18
years.
4 Anshu Son 14 ₹ 3,00,000/ Nil Entire amount be
. Gahlot years kept in FDR till the
petitioner no. 3
attains the age of 18
years.
Battan Mother 71 4,64,000/ Rs. ₹ 4,00,000/ be kept
Devi years 64,000/ in 40 FDRs of ₹
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 25 10,000/ each for the period from 1 month to 40 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
Same Father 71 ₹44,000/ ₹44,000/ ....................
Chand years The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
24. It is stated that in the instant case, Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners have already stated to be opened at Nationalized bank.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the above said cash amounts to the abovesaid respective saving bank accounts of the abovesaid petitioners after due verification and as per rules and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 26 High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Managers of the bank where the said petitioners are having the aforesaid respective saving bank accounts (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners' bank) are directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioners, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the savings bank accounts of petitioners.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioners.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the above said FDRs to the petitioners without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioners.
(MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 27 The abovesaid Petitioners' banks are also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioners and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioners to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 31.05.2023.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.04.01 16:42:23 (Announced in the open Court +0530 on this 31th day of March 2022 (Rekha) PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (MACP No.435/18 ) Poonam and Ors. Vs. Dharamvir and Ors. 28