Delhi District Court
Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs . Suresh Kumar & Ors. on 26 February, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 915/16
Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010020362015
FIR No. 514/15
U/s 279/304A IPC
PS Najafgarh
1. Pardeep Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan
Mobile no. 9650527717
PAN : AOBPP1123L
2. Sanjay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan
Mobile no. 7011193133
PAN : BWUPK1619N
Both R/o
209, Holi Chowk,
VPO Ghumenhera, SouthWest Delhi
Delhi. ... Petitioners
Vs.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 1 of 41
2
1. Sh. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Surat
R/o Vill. Andri Para, P. O. Ranipur,
Distt. Jonpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Mobile no. Not Available.
2. Sh. Nazir (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ismail,
R/o Village Satai, Khatela,
Tehsil Hodal, Palwal, Haryana.
Mobile no. Not Available.
3. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Insurer)
O/o NH5, R2,
Near Badshah Khan Chowk,
NIT, Faridabad, Haryana
Nodal Officer : Ms. Swati Sareen
Mobile no. 9999261769
Email ID:[email protected] ... Respondents
MACP no. 916/16
Vinod Kumar vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
CNR no. DLSW010020372015
1. Vinod Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Hukam Chand
R/o 308, Holi Chowk, Ghumenhera,
New Delhi
Mobile no. 9654767916
PAN : CHBPS3733E ... Petitioner
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 2 of 41
3
Vs.
1. Sh. Suresh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Surat
R/o Vill. Andri Para, P. O. Ranipur,
Distt. Jonpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Mobile no. Not Available.
2. Sh. Nazir (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ismail,
R/o Village Satai, Khatela,
Tehsil Hodal, Palwal, Haryana.
Mobile no. Not Available.
3. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Insurer)
O/o NH5, R2,
Near Badshah Khan Chowk,
NIT, Faridabad, Haryana
Nodal Officer : Ms. Swati Sareen
Mobile no. 9999261769
Email ID:[email protected]
... Respondents
Date of institution of the case MACP no. (915/15) - 08.09.2015
Date of institution of the case MACP no. (916/15) - 08.09.2015
Date on which, judgment have been reserved - 05.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 26.02.2022
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 3 of 41
4
( In MACP No. 915/16 - Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs Suresh Kumar & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 29.06.2015
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 08.09.2015
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 08.09.2015
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 08.09.2015
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA
later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 17.12.2015
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Not clear from record.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 4 of 41
5
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Legal offer was filed.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law ( Clause
23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of Not clear from the record.
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 26.02.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of
residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 15.03.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction tot he bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimants (s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 01.04.2019
passbook of their savings bank account near the
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 5 of 41
6
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o 209, Holi Chowk,
(Clause 27 ) VPO Ghumenhera,
New Delhi
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the 1. Petitioner no. 1 Pardeep
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC SB account no.
Code( Clause 27) 50066463620, at Allahabad
Bank, Ghumanhera, New
Delhi (IFSC Code :
ALLA0211102)
2. Petitioner no. 2 Sanjay
Kumar- SB account no.
520291020332233 at
Corporation Bank,
Daryapur Khurd, near
Ghumanhera, New Delhi
(IFSC Code :
CORP0002934).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No. 37665510911
name and branch of the bank of the Claims at SBI, District Court
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Complex, Sector10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 6 of 41
7
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
( In MACP No. 916/16 - Vinod Kr Sharma vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 29.06.2015
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal
( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not clear from record
Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company
(Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 08.09.2015
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 08.09.2015
Company. (Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 08.09.2015
(Clause 11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA
later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 7 of 41
8
any action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 17.12.2015
the Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Not clear from record.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company
( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Legal offer was filed.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law ( Clause
23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action / directions
warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of Not clear from the record.
the Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 26.02.2022
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of
residence ? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 15.03.2018
to open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction tot he bank not issue any
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 8 of 41
9
cheque book/debit card to the claimants (s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 01.04.2019
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
(Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o 308, Holi Chowk,
(Clause 27 ) VPO Ghumenhera,
New Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the Petitioner Vinod Kumar
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Sharma SB account no.
Code( Clause 27) 21596013140 at Allahabad
Bank, Ghumenhera, New
Delhi (IFSC Code:
ALLA0211102).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Account No. 37665510911
name and branch of the bank of the Claims at SBI, District Court
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Complex, Sector10,
deposited/transferred. Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC
Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 9 of 41
10
JUDGMENT:
1a. Vide this common judgment, this Tribunal shall dispose of two cases bearing MACP No. 915/16 & MACP No. 916/16 pertaining to the same road traffic accident which took place on 29.06.2015.
b. The first case/DAR bearing (MACP No. 915/16) as per the provisions of M.V. Act has been filed on behalf of petitioners Pardeep Kumar and Sanjay Kumar in respect of death of their mother Smt. Savitri Devi caused in the road traffic accident on 29.06.2015 c. The connected case/DAR bearing (MACP No. 916/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Vinod Kumar Sharma in the same road traffic accident.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts as made out from the DAR are that on 29.06.2015 at about 04.30 pm, the deceased Savitri Devi was going alongwith one Vinod Kumar Sharma on his scooty as pillion rider and when they reached near Nangloi stand and took turn towards fruit market, a truck bearing no. HR55 G6479 being driven in a very high speed, in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty from the back. Due to the forceful impact Savitri Devi and Vinod Kumar Sharma fell down. Further Smt. Savitri Devi received fatal injuries whereas Vinod Kumar Sharma received grievous injuries.
b. It is further stated that after the accident, injured Vinod Kumar Sharma was taken to Irene Swastik Hospital. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 10 of 41 11 of accident without observing the traffic rules and regulations. c. Accordingly, the present case was registered vide FIR No. 514/15 u/s 279/304A IPC at PS Najafgarh and the investigation was conducted by the IO. d. On conclusion of the investigation, the DAR has been filed by the IO qua death of deceased Savitri Devi and the same was consolidated with the DAR (bearing MACP No. 916/16) on 15.03.2018 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this Tribunal. Further, the connected DAR (bearing MACP No. 916/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma in the same accident.
3 DEFENCES a. In their reply, R1 Suresh Kumar (driver) and R2 Nazir (owner of offending vehicle) has stated that the present DAR has been filed by the police on false and frivolous grounds by concocting a false story of accident and it was liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle HR 55 G 6479 has not committed any rash and negligent driving against the injured and he never violated any traffic rules and regulations. Further, the injured Vinod Kumar Sharma was himself driving his scooty bearing no. DL4SBY8566 with his aunty Smt. Savitri Devi without complying with any traffic rules and regulations when they turned to fruit market due to which the accident has occurred. b. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle has not committed any rash and negligent driving and he never violated any traffic rules. The driver was holding valid driving licence and that the alleged offending vehicle is insured with the "The New India Insurance Company". Therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, was of the insurance company.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 11 of 41 12 c. Legal offer was filed on behalf of the insurance company. However, reply was also filed. In its reply, R3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd has stated that the offending vehicle i.e. bearing Truck bearing no. HR55G6479 was insured with the respondent/ insurance company at the relevant time vide insurance policy vide policy no. 31270031140100008835 which was valid from 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016 in the name of Nazir S/o Sh. Ismail, R/o Village Satai, Khatela, Tehsil Hodal, Palwal, Haryana on certain terms and conditions and the liability of the respondent/ insurance company was limited, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the scooty himself as he hit the truck from the conductor side.
d. In the legal offers, it has been stated that insurance company was offering a sum of ₹1,35,000/as compensation to the LRs of Smt. Savitri in MACP no. 915/16 and a sum of ₹20,000/ as compensation to petitioner / injured Vinod Kumar Sharma in case MACP no. 916/16. Further, it has been prayed that an award may be passed in these cases if the same is not acceptable to the petitioners.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.03.2018 by Ld. Predecessor of this court :
ISSUES :
1. Whether Savitri Devi sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.06.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Trruck) no. HR55G6479 being driven by Suresh Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Nazir and insured by New India Assurance Company Ltd. ? ...OPP MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 12 of 41 13
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. In support of their case, petitioners have examined petitioner no. 2 Sanjay Kumar as PW1 and injured Vinod Kumar Sharma as PW2 and thereafter PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners on 21.08.2018.
6. Further, no RE was lead either by Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no.2 or by Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company. Therefore, RE was closed vide order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Savitri Devi sustained fatal injuries and Vinod Kumar Sharma sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.06.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Truck) no. HR55 G 6479 being driven by Suresh Kumar, owned by Nazir and insured by New India Assurance Company Ltd. ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus , the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Sanjay Kumar who MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 13 of 41 14 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and PW2 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that he was eye witness to accident and was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
b. PW 2 Sh. Vinod Kumar also relied upon the documents Ex. PW2/1 (colly). PW2 further deposed that on 29.06.2015 at about 04.30 pm, the deceased Savitri Devi was going alongwith him on his scooty as pillion rider and when they reached near Nangloi stand and took turn towards fruit market, a truck bearing no. HR55 G6479 being driven in a very high speed, in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty from the back. Due to the forceful impact they both fell down. Further Smt. Savitri Devi received fatal injuries whereas he received grievous injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, he was taken to Irene Swastik Hospital. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident without observing the traffic rules and regulations.
c. The important fact is that this witness i.e. PW2 Vinod Kumar Sharma was cross examined on behalf respondent no. 3, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness. R1 and R2 neither cross examined the witness nor appeared in the witness box to present any alternative version regarding how the accident took place. Thus, the only version on record is that which is presented by the eye witness and is also supported by the site plan filed alongwith the DAR. The eye witness has alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven at high speed whereas, the driver of big commercial vehicle was duty bound to drive more carefully, specially near a turn.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 14 of 41 15 d. Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Savitri Devi sustained fatal injuries and died and petitioner / injured Vinod Kumar Sharma sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.06.2015 due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing no. (HR55G6479), which was being driven by R1 Suresh Kumar, owned by R2 Nazir and insured with R 3/New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
9. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus the petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Sanjay Kumar (petitioner no. 2), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that he was son of deceased Savitri Devi, who met with a road accident on 29.06.2015 and received fatal injuries and FIR No.514/15, u/s 279/304A IPC was registered in this regard at PS Najafgarh. Further, PW1 in his evidence Ex. PW1/A deposed that his mother was working privately (dairy and agriculture) and earning ₹15,000/pm at the time of accident. PW1 deposed that his deceased mother was great supporter of the family and his complete family was dependent upon the income of his mother. Further, PW1 deposed that he was 85% permanent disabled (Ex. PW1/2) person and was dependent upon her for all his needs. PW1 also deposed that he was relying upon the documents i.e. Aadhdar Card MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 15 of 41 16 as Ex. PW1/1, Disability Certificate as Ex. PW1/2 and DAR as Ex. PW1/3. b. Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceased Savitri Devi sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident dated 29.06.2015 due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) no. HR55G6479, which was being driven by R1 Suresh Kumar, owned by R2 Nazir and insured with R3 New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such petitioners, being the injured and LRs of the deceased Savitri Devi, have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident.
c. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Savitri Devi is ascertained under the following heads:
10. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the testimony of PW1 Sanjay Kumar and Aadhar Card of deceased, the year of birth of deceased Savitri Devi was 1941 and as such, she was about 75 years of age at the time of accident on 29.06.2015. As per the mandate of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr1, a multiplier of 5 is applicable above the age of 65 years. However, the multiplier has to be reduced by two units for every 5 years thereafter. The last multiplier given in the said judgment is 5 for the age group of 66 70 years. Going by the said logic, the multiplier would reduce to 3 for the age of 75 years.
1 (2009) 6SCC 121.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 16 of 41 17
11. NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS a. In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased - Savitri was widow and has left behind two LRs i.e. petitioner Sh. Pardeep Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar (both major sons).
b. So far as both sons of the deceased are concerned, his son Pradeep Kumar is a farmer and earning ₹8,000/ per month as given in his statement regarding financial status, needs and liabilities whereas another son Sanjay Kumar is physically disabled and not working anywhere and is only getting disability pension of ₹2,500/ per month. They admitted the same in their statement regarding financial status, needs and liabilities. In National Insurance Company Limited vs Birender and Ors.2, it was held that :
"It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only".
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the said case, the evidence on record would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 242243 with 240 OF 2020 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.01.2020.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 17 of 41 18 labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. It was also observed that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third (1/3rd). c. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr 3 one third ( 1/3rd ) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from her total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
12. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, PW1 Sanjay Kumar (LR of deceased) deposed that at the time of accident, his mother was self employed in dairy and agriculture and was earning ₹15,000/pm. b. However, there was neither any proof of such earning nor any document has been placed on record by the petitioners to prove the same. Therefore, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages. The deceased was permanent resident of Delhi whereas no proof of her education or any other document regarding her income has been placed on record by petitioners. Accordingly, minimum wages for unskilled worker applicable in the State of Delhi when the accident took place (29.06.2015) shall be considered. The same are ₹9048/ per month.
c. Further, in terms of thee principles laid down in National Insurance 3 Supra, Note 1.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 18 of 41 19 Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi4, the deceased was 75 years of age at the time of accident and hence, no future prospects can be given at such age.
13. 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.
Hence, criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case and as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Savitri Devi can be calculated as under:
a) Salary of the deceased : ₹9,048/p.m Savitri Devi
b) Future prospects : Nil.
c) 1/3rd deduction towards on personal and living expenses of deceased. : ₹3,016/ d) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs.90483016) : ₹6,032/ e) Annual loss of dependency to the family due to death of deceased : ₹72,384/ (Rs.6,032 X 12) f) Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of deceased Multiplier i.e. 3 : ₹2,17,152/ 4 2017 (13) SCALE 12. MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 19 of 41 20
Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Sh. Savitri Devi comes to ₹2,17,152/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e. ₹2,17,152/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
14. 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 Sethi & Ors. 5, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
15. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 6, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
16. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Savitri Devi, her sons Pardeep Kumar and Sanjay Kumar have suffered loss of love and affection. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram7, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Satinder Kaur 8, a sum of ₹80,000/ (40,000 X 2) is awarded to the petitioners - Pardeep Kumar and 5 Ibid 6 Ibid 7 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 8 2020SCC Online SC 410 MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 20 of 41 21 Sanjay Kumar towards 'loss of consortium'.
17. 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 ₹2,17,152/ 2 Loss of consortium ₹80,000/ 3 For funeral expenses ₹15,000/ 4 Loss of estate ₹15,000/ TOTAL ₹3,27,152/ rounded off to ₹3,30,000/
18. 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 facts and 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.9 Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹3,30,000/ from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 08.09.2015 till realization.
9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 21 of 41 22
19. RELIEF IN MACP No. 915/16 (Pardeep & Ors vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹3,30,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the DAR i.e 08.09.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners-Sh. Pardeep Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar and against the respondents .
20. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹3,30,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased Savitri Devi in the following manner with proportionate interest .
S. No. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount
1. Petitioner no.1 - Sh. Pardeep Kumar (son) ₹1,65,000/
2. Petitioner no.2 - Sanjay Kumar ( son) ₹1,65,000/ Total ₹3,30,000/
21. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 29.06.2015
ii). Name of the deceased : Smt. Savitri Devi
iii). Age of the deceased : 75 years ( at the time of accident) MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 22 of 41
23
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Self employed
v). Income of the deceased : ₹9,048/ per month (minimum wages)
vi). Name , age and relationship of legal representative of deceased
S.No. Name Age Relation with
deceased
(i) Sh. Pardeep Kumar 43 years Son
(ii) Sh. Sanjay Kumar 42 years Son
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) ₹9,048/
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Nil
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) ₹3,016/
10. Monthly loss of dependency ₹6,032/ [ (A+B)C=D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) ₹72,384/ 12. Multiplier (E) 3
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E=F) ₹2,17,152/
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection NA (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) ₹ 80,000/
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹ 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) ₹ 15,000/
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹3,27,152/ rounded off (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 23 of 41 24 ₹3,30,000/
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 08.09.2015 till realization.
22. Total amount including interest ( L+M) ₹3,30,000/ + @9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 08.09.2015 till realization.
23. Award amount released As per table given below
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount By credit in the SB Account to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) of the petitioners
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 26.05.2022 ( Clause 31) 22a. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 3 / New India Assurance Company 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.
b. Further, the statement of petitioners - Pardeep Kumar and Sanjay Kumar ( sons /LR of the deceased in MACP No. 915/16) regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner / LR of the deceased & having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 24 of 41
25
S. Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR
No (at Award Amount
prese
nt
1. Sh. Son 45 ₹1,65,000/ ₹21,000/ ₹1,44,000/ be kept in 12
Pardeep years FDRs of ₹12,000/ each
Kumar for the period from 1
month to 12 months in the
name of petitioner no.1
with cumulative interest.
2 Sh. Son 43 ₹1,65,000/ ₹21,000/ ₹1,44,000/ be kept in 12
Sanjay years FDRs of ₹12,000/ each
Kumar for the period from 1
month to 12 months in the
name of petitioner no.2
with cumulative interest.
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.).
23. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 50066463620 in the name of Son / petitioner no.1 - Pradeep Kumar has been opened at Allahabad Bank, Ghumanhera Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code:
ALLA0211102), PAN : AONPP1123L, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 25 of 41 26 Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner 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 petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner 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 the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
24. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 520291020332233 in the name of Son / petitioner no. 2 - Sanjay Kumar has been opened at Corporation Bank, Daryapur Khurd, near Ghumanhera Branch, Delhi MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 26 of 41 27 (IFSC Code: CORP0002934), PAN : BWUPK1619N, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner 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 petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner 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 the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 27 of 41 28 COMPENSATION IN MACP NO. 916/16 QUA INJURED VINOD KUMAR:
25. The computation of calculation to which the injured is entitled to is as follows: a. The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 916/16 was upon the petitioner/injured Vinod Kumar Sharma and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma has examined himself as PW2 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that on 29.06.2015 at about 04.30 pm, he alongwith his paternal aunt Smt. Savitri Devi as pillion rider were going on his scooty. b. When they reached near Nangloi stand and took turn towards fruit market, a truck bearing no. HR55G6479 being driven in a very high speed, in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty from back and due to the forceful impact they both fell down. Further Smt. Savitri Devi received fatal injuries whereas he sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, he was taken to Irene Swastik Hospital. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident without observing the traffic rules and regulations. Accordingly, the present case was registered vide FIR No. 514/15 u/s 279/304A IPC at PS Najafgarh and the investigation was conducted by the IO.
c. PW2 deposed that he was doing government job as UDC in Transport Department and earning ₹56,000/ per month at the time of accident. PW2 further deposed that he had incurred expenses of ₹50,000/ in his treatment. PW2 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW2/1( colly) which includes his Aadhar Card, official ID Card pertaining to Transport Department, Leave Certificate issued by MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 28 of 41 29 Govt. Engineering College, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and Salary slip for the month of August 2015.
d. Hence in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 29.06.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. HR 55G 6479, which was being driven by R1 Suresh Kumar, owned by R2 Nazir and insured with R3/New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, the petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
e. Accordingly, quantum of compensation payable to petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma is ascertained under the following heads:
26. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES a. As per the MLC bearing no. 027/15 pertaining to Irene Swastik Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi petitioner/injured Vinod Kumar Sharma has received simple injuries.
b. Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
27. MEDICINES & TREATMENT a. In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injuredVinod Kumar Sharma has undergone initial treatment at Irene Swastik Hospital, New Delhi, vide MLC no. 027/2015 for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case .
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 29 of 41 30 b. Further, in regard to the abovesaid treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured Vinod Kumar Sharma has not placed on record any medical bills/ receipts regarding the expenditure spent on his treatment. c. It is pertinent to mention that injured has produced the leave record pertaining to his work place i.e. Ch. Brahm Prakash Government Engineering College, Jaffarpur, Delhi showing his leave period w.e.f. 02.07.2015 to 10.07.2015. However, no bill or receipts have been placed on record regarding the expenses incurred. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is not entitled any compensation under this head.
28. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET a. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma sustained simple injury. b. However, it is apparent from the leave record Ex. PW2/1 placed by petitioner that he remained on leave w.e.f. 02.07.2015 till 10.07.2015. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have not been able to use public transport for atleast one month and would also have required special diet for similar period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. Assuming that he travelled by Cab or Car 10 times a month and incurred expenditure of ₹500/ each time, he would have spent ₹5,000/ per month for one month on conveyance c. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹5,000/ towards 'conveyance charges'.
d. Further, in view of the abovesaid injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a fast MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 30 of 41 31 and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹5,000/ (@ ₹5,000/ per month) towards expenses for 'special diet'.
29. LOSS OF INCOME a. In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that he is working in Ch. Brahm Prakash Govt. Engg. College. Jaffarpur, Delhi as UDC at the time of accident and was earning a net pay of ₹26,251/ p.m. He has placed on record his salary slip for the month of August 2015 as Ex. PW2/2 which shows that he is getting salary of ₹26,251/ per month.
b. In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered simple injury and has remained on leave from duty from 02.07.2015 to 10.07.2015, i.e. 9 days. Further in his cross examination, injured Vinod Kumar has stated that he has attended his office on 30.06.2015 & 01.07.2015. It is also admitted by the injured that above mentioned leave is both for the injuries as well as to attend the last rites of his parental aunt. It is further pertinent to mention that injured Vinod Kumar has received salary for the above mentioned leave period as no deduction of salary is placed on record. However, he is entitled to loss of earning due to the leave taken by him in terms of loss of leave encashment.
c. Accordingly, his income during the period of his leaves will be taken as his basic salary inclusive of DA. Hence, his income for the relevant time (02.07.2015 to 10.07.2015 = 9 days) i.e. ₹24,587/ p.m. (₹10,270/ + ₹14,317/)(Basic and DA of leave period) is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 31 of 41 32 d. Perusal of record also shows that accident occurred on 29.06.2015. It would be logical to attribute the absence of the petitioner from duty after the accident till the time he was recovering from the injuries to the accident itself making him entitled to loss of pay in lieu of leave. It is pertinent to mention that as per document Ex. PW2/1, i.e. the leave record of petitioner Vinod Kr Sharma, he has taken 09 days leave from 02.07.2015 to 10.07.2015. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of ₹24587 X 9/30 = ₹7,376.10/ under the head 'Loss of Income'.
30. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured was silent on the aspect of attendant. Further, perusal of the MLC shows that the petitioner has received simple injuries. Moreover, neither any attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to any attendant has been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case. Further, he has neither mentioned nor placed on record any document regarding his hospitalization due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, petitioner Vinod Kr Sharma is not entitled for any amount under this head.
31. PAIN & SUFFERINGS a. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 32 of 41
33
(e) Duration of the treatment.
b. In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is
no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered simple injuries and has not mentioned the period of hospitalization due to the said injuries sustained by him. However, it goes without saying that he would have suffered discomfort and trauma due to the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.10, the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of ₹30,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards the head 'pain & sufferings'.
32. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 45 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered simple injuries. However, he has not suffered any permanent disability due to the accident. Hence, he shall not be entitled for any compensation under this Head. However, he is entitled to a sum of ₹10,000/ as compensation for 'mental and physical shock' suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
10 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012 MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 33 of 41 34
33. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Vinod Kumar Sharma is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment Nil
2. Conveyance ₹5,000/
3. Special Diet ₹5,000/
4. Loss of Income ₹7,376.10/
5. Attendant Nil
6. Pain & Sufferings ₹30,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Nil
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock ₹10,000/ Total ₹57,736.10 rounded off to ₹60,000/
34. 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 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.11 Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹60,000/ from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 08.09.2015 till realization.
11 Supra, Note 9 MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 34 of 41 35
35. RELIEF IN MACP No. 916/16 (Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. ) Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹60,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 08.09.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Vinod Kumar Sharma and against the respondents.
36. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 29.06.2015
ii). Name of the injured : Vinod Kumar Sharma
iii). Age of the injured : 45 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured: Govt. Job (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs.26,251/ per month(Net pay as per salary slip)
vi). Nature of injury : Simple
vii). Medical treatment taken : Irene Swastik Hospital by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : Nil
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 35 of 41 36
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹5,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹5,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Nil
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income ₹7376.10
(vii) Any other loss which may require
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹10,000/
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹30,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 36 of 41
37
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity
in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x %
Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation ₹57,376.10 rounded off to
₹60,000/.
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from
award the date of filing of DAR
i.e. 08.09.2015 till
realization.
17. Total amount including interest ₹60,000/ + interest @ 9%
per annum from the date
of filing of the DAR i.e.
08.09.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) Account of the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the 26.05.2022 award. ( Clause 31) MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 37 of 41 38
37. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited / transferred by respondent no. 3 / New India Assurance Company 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 petitionerSh. Vinod Kumar Sharma regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S. Name Status Age (at Amount of Release Amount / No. present) Award Amount Period of FDR
1. Sh. Petitioner / 53 years ₹60,000/ ₹60,000/ Nil.
Vinod injured Kumar Sharma 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.).
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 38 of 41 39
38. LIABILITY ( In both the cases bearing MACP No. 915/16 & MACP No. 916/16) The offending vehicle bearing no. HR 55G 6479 was being driven by respondent No.1Suresh Kumar, owned by respondent no.2 Sh. Nazir and was insured with respondent no.3/New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases bearing MACP No. 915/16 & MACP No. 916/16).
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
39. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 21596013140 in the name of injured / petitioner - Vinod Kumar Sharma has been opened at Allahabad Bank, Ghumanhera Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code:
ALLA0211102), PAN : CHBPS3733E, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 39 of 41 40 Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner 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 petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner 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 the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
40. The R3/Insurance company shall inform the petitioners in both the case bearing MACP No. 915/16 & MACP No. 916/16 as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi, for information / compliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 40 of 41 41 The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading / main case bearing MACP No. 915/16 and the copy thereof be placed in the file of connected case bearing MACP No. 916/16 .
Ahlmad is directed to prepare the separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 26.05.2022.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH KUMAR
KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2022.02.26
(Announced in the open Court on SETHI 13:13:50 +0530
this 26th day of February, 2022) (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
26.02.2022
MACP no. : 915/16 Pardeep Kumar & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
MACP no. : 916/16 Vinod Kr Sharma vs Suresh Kumar & Ors 41 of 41