Delhi District Court
Lrs Of Rahul vs Sachin on 24 April, 2024
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 1 of38
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 450826/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-001574-2015
LRs of Rahul:
1. Maya Devi (deceased) W/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma
through her LRs:
(a) Dharmender Kumar Vishwakarma
S/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o Village & Post Sureman Pur,
PS & Tehsil Bairiya,
District Balia, UP
(b) Raghwendra Vishwakarma
S/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o H.No. 10, Village Gangapur,
Sureman Pur, Balia, UP -277208
(c) Hema Sharma
W/o Sh. Anil Sharma
D/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o Village Maharajpur,
Chandpur, Balia, UP -277201
(d) Neha Sharma'
W/o Sh. Deepak Sharma
D/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o Sureman Pur, Balia, UP-277208
2. Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
S/o Sh. Ramdhar Sharma
R/o Village & Post Sureman Pur,
PS & Tehsil Bairiya,
District Balia, UP
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sachin
S/o Sh. Dilbagh
R/o H.no. 103, Ward No. 7,
Kharkhoda Delhi Road,
District Sonepat, Haryana
....... Driver/R1
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 1 of38
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 2 of38
2. Hem Chander S/o Shri Chand,
R/o H.No. 18, Village Sevli,
Block Road, District Sonipat, Haryana
........Owner/R2
3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
Having its Director Office at:
1505-1506, 15th Floor, Ambadeep Building,
14 K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.07.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.03.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2024
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN
FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH &
ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 05.10.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 13.07.2015
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 13.07.2015
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the DAR
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 2 of38
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 3 of38
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 13.07.2015
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 13.07.2015
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 13.07.2015
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 13.07.2015
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. V.K. Gupta,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. the insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 3 of38
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 4 of38
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal Offer not
the offer of the Insurance Company . filed
18. Date of the Award 24.04.2024
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 16.03.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 03.03.2022
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Ravindra Sharma
with IFSC Code savings bank a/c
No.40496453413
with SBI, Branch
Kotwa, Code
6285, Kotwa,
Raniganj,
IFSC :
SBIN0006285
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 4 of38
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 5 of38
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 13.07.2015, with reference to FIR No. 793/14, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, PS Kanjhawala, Delhi, in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the injured Panna Lal and fatal injuries sustained by Rahul, in a road accident, on 05.10.2014, at about 10.31 pm, near Hanuman Mandir, Village Jaunti, Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this court, vide order dated 13.07.2015, treated the DAR as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act'). Subsequently, the LRs of deceased Rahul has filed separate petition U/s 166/140 of M.V. Act, on 30.09.2015, which was clubbed with the DAR, vide order dated 14.01.2016. It is worthwhile to mention here that initially only one DAR was filed with respect to the claim of the deceased Rahul and injured Panna Lal and the same was registered as MACT case No. 306/15 and the entire proceedings were recorded in the said case and even issues LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 5 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 6 of38 was framed in the said file. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.05.2018, separate files were prepared qua the claim of the deceased Rahul and injured Panna Lal and the claim petition with regard to injured Panna Lal was registered as MACT case No. 750/18.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR, claim petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants) are that the deceased was working as a supervisor in Aravali Industries Ltd., at a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, at the time of accident. It is further averred that on 05.10.2014, at about 10.30 pm, the deceased was going with his brother in law/injured Panna Lal, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4SCB-4227 (herein after referred as victim's vehicle), being driven by the deceased Rahul and when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Village Jaunti, Delhi, a white colour Swift car, bearing registration number HR-10W-3491 (herein after referred as offending vehicle), which was going ahead of their motorcycle, hit the divider, as a result of which an electric pole fell down with wires and victim's vehicle got entangled in the electricity wires. It is averred that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver Sachin S/o Sh. Dilbag (herein after referred as respondent no.1/R1), in a rash, negligent and zigzag manner. It is further stated that in the accident, the victims namely Rahul and Panna Lal had sustained LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 6 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 7 of38 injuries.
3. It is further averred that both the injured were shifted by PCR van to SGM Hospital, where Rahul was declared brought dead and the victim Panna Lal sustained simple injuries and received treatment vide MLC No. 19277/14.
4. It is further stated that the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri Delhi, vide PMR No. 965/14 dated 06.10.2014, at 11.30 am, as per which, the cause of death was given as cerebellar damage, as a result of blunt force impact and injuries were stated to be ante mortem in nature and possible in the manner as alleged.
5. It is further alleged that the offending vehicle was owned by Hem Chander S/o Shri Chand (herein after referred as respondent no. 2/R2) and the same was insured at the time of accident with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as insurance company/ Respondent no.3/R3), vide policy no. MOP2192735, valid for the period 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2015.
6. R1 and R2 failed to file any reply/written statement to the claim petition/DAR, therefore, they are deemed to have admitted the contents of the petition. Further, R1 and R2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.2018.
7. In its written statement/reply, R3/insurance company LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 7 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 8 of38 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the relevant time. It is stated that as per DAR, the driving license of R1 has been found to be not issued from Nagaland, as no record of the said driving license was traced hence, R3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor Court, vide order dated 28.04.2016:-
1. Whether on 05.10.2014, at about 10.31 pm, at Kanjhawala Kutubgarh Road, near Hanuman Mandir, Village Jaunti, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. HR-10W-3491, which was being driven rashly and negligently by R1/Sachin had hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4S-CB-
4227 and caused death of Rahul? OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined 3 witnesses. It is noteworthy that there are 2 connected petitions, arising out of the same accident i.e MACT case no. 306/2015, titled as LRs of Rahul vs Sachin and Ors. and MACT case No. 750/18, LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 8 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 9 of38 titled as Panna Lal Vs. Sachin and Ors., and for the purpose of evidence, both the files were consolidated and MACT case no. 306/2015, titled as LRs of Rahul Vs Sachin and Ors., was treated as the main Case.
10. In support of their respective claim petitions, the injured Panna Lal Sharma got himself examined as PW1. He was also an injured in the case accident and therefore, an eye witness of the case accident. His deposition qua the accident is reiteration of the contents of the DAR and petition. He further deposed that he had received grievous injuries in the case accident and at the time of accident, he was working as a supervisor and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove his identity, he has placed reliance on his Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1. He had further placed reliance on copy of his driving license Ex.PW1/2, his salary certificate Ex.PW1/3 and DAR as filed by IO Ex.PW1/4.
11. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that their motorcycle was being driven by Rahul, on the left side of the road and when the accident took place, there was a distance of about 50-100 meters, between their motorcycle and the offending vehicle. He deposed that there was no other vehicle besides the car and their motorcycle, at the time of accident and that the offending vehicle did not hit their motorcycle. He further deposed that his statement was LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 9 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 10 of38 recorded by the police on 05.10.2014, at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that no accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle or that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Rahul. He denied the suggestion that he has not incurred any expenses, on his treatment or that the medical bills filed by him on record are false. He further denied the suggestion that after the accident, he did not require any bed rest.
12. PW2 Sh. Ravinder Sharma, father of the deceased Rahul, got himself examined as PW2. His deposition qua the accident is also reiteration of the fact mentioned in the petition. He additionally deposed that the deceased was a supervisor, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He also deposed that the petitioners spent more than Rs.50,000/- on conveyance and last rites of the deceased. He has placed reliance on his election ID card Ex.PW2/1, photocopy of DL of R1 Mark A, death certificate of the deceased Ex.PW2/2, residential proof issued by Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gangapur Ex.PW2/3. He was also cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance co./R3, wherein he admitted that he is not an eye witness of the case accident and he is having the D.L of the deceased Rahul. He deposed that his year of birth is 1956 and deceased was born on 20.05.1992. He deposed that he is working as a farmer for his livelihood and mother of the deceased had LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 10 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 11 of38 expired on 07.01.2018, after the accident, as she has fallen from the roof. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning anything as on the date of accident.
13. PW3 Retired SI Ram Kishan was the IO of the case and deposed that he has filed the DAR Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) and charge sheet of FIR No.793/14 PS Kanjhawala. He further deposed that at the time of filing of DAR, the concerned constable went to Nagaland, however, he after coming back, informed him that due to flood type situation there, he reached at wrong authority and as such, no record of the driving licence of R1 was found available at that office and accordingly, he filed the said report with DAR, which is Ex. R3W1/4. He further deposed that after filing of the chargesheet, he again sent a constable for proper verification of DL, who after verification from the proper authority, came with the report dated 26.11.2015, which was filed with the charge sheet and as per the said report dated 26.11.2015, the driving licence No. 25757/NTV/T/2011 was found valid in the name of R1/Sachin, as issued from DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland and said report was marked as Mark PW3/X-1 (colly). He further deposed that the subsequent report Mark PW3/X-1 (colly) is correct report and as per the investigation, the DL of R1 was found genuine.
14. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance co./R3, wherein he deposed that the duty of the DL LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 11 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 12 of38 verification is of the IO, however normally a constable/head constable is sent, with out-station permission of the higher authorities, along with the necessary request letter, upon which, it is verified. He deposed that he was not having any written order, vide which, he could have sent any other police officials for such verification. He further deposed that he had filed the DAR, however, he had not mentioned in the DAR that the report Ex. R3W1/4 was not a proper report or further time be granted to him to file a proper DL verification report with the DAR. He deposed that he could not tell as to name of the constable, who went for verification and on whose permission, he went to Nagaland, after which, he had filed report Ex.R3W1/4. He admitted that reports Ex.R3W1/4 and Mark PW3/X-1 (colly) does not contain signature of any constable and that both the reports Ex.R3W1/4 and Mark PW3/X-1 (colly) bear the same stamp of same authority i.e District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland and the address of the authority mentioned on both the reports are same. He further admitted that in the report Ex.R3W1/4, there is a proper reference number and the name of the authority, to which it is addressed i.e ACP, MACT Cell/Outer District, Delhi, PS South Rohini, Second Floor, MACT Cell/OD. He further admitted that the said details are missing in the another report Mark PW3/X-1 (colly). He deposed that the request letter, if any, given to the concerned DTO Authority is not on record and he does not remember, if he had not filed the LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 12 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 13 of38 original report of Mark PW3/X-1 before the court of Ld. MM, as the copy of the same on record of this court's file is only copy to copy. He further deposed that he has never visited Nagaland and there was no direction from any court to verify the DL of R1 again. He further deposed that he had not filed any application before this Tribunal, to seek permission to file the subsequent report Mark PW3/X-1 (colly). He further deposed that it was mentioned in the Zimni of the police file, as to which constable or head constable, was sent outside Delhi for verification but, he had not brought any record, as on the date of his evidence, he had retired. He deposed that he has retired in the year 2017 and he has been deposing on the basis of his memory and the record on the court file. He denied the suggestion that he never got the DL of R1 verified again or that he had not filed the report mark PW3/X-1 (colly) before the court of Ld. MM or that he was in collusion with driver/R1 and owner/R2. He denied the suggestion that he was not having any reason, whatsoever to get the DL of R1 verified again or that nothing was mentioned in that regard by him in the Zimni of police file or that the documents Mark PW3/X-1 (colly) is forged and fabricated document therefore, he does not have the original of Mark PW3/X-1 (colly).
15. R3/Insurance company has got examined Sh. Prashant Pratap Singh, Legal Manager, Royal Sundaram GIC Ltd., 1505-1506, 15th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14 K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi as R3W1. He led his LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 13 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 14 of38 evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He deposed that driver has not produced his driving license allegedly issued from Nagaland and as per circular no. 23/MV/2007/PT- 1/Kohima dated 01.08.2014 of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland, the license holders having booklet or any manual formats, other than smart card were to report to the office, from where they have been issued, for the purpose of including their data and subsequent issue of smart card, latest by December 2014, after which driving licence other than smart card shall be considered cancelled. He deposed that in view of the said circular, driver and owner of the vehicle were directed to produce smart card format but, despite notice, the driver and owner have failed to produce smart card format of driving license or any other document to show that they have complied with the circular. He had placed reliance on notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1, three postal receipts Ex.R3W1/2 (colly), certified copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/3, D.L. verification report filed with DAR Ex.R3W1/4. He deposed that as per this report, no record of D.L was found in the authority and hence D.L be treated as fake.
16. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, wherein he has been shown the verification report of D.L No.25757/NTV/T/2011 Mark 'A' on record, to which R3W1 deposed that he was not aware about any such report and the original report filed by the IO along with the DAR is Ex.R3W1/4. He denied the suggestion that R1 was LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 14 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 15 of38 having a valid and effective D.L at the time of the accident.
17. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh. S.P. Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh. V.K. Gupta, Learned counsel for R3. None has appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to address final arguments, as they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.2018.
18. On appreciation of evidence as adduced by the parties in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 05.10.2014, at about 10.31 pm, at Kanjhawala Kutubgarh Road, near Hanuman Mandir, Village Jaunti, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. HR-10W-3491, which was being driven rashly and negligently by R1/Sachin had hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4S-CB-4227 and caused death of Rahul? OPP.
19. The onus of proving this issue on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Panna Lal Sharma is relevant, being an eyewitness as well as one of the injured. PW1 Sh. Panna Lal Sharma has proved his identity, by placing reliance on his Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1. He deposed that on 05.10.2014, at about 10.30 pm, PW1 was going with the deceased Rahul, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4SCB-4227, being driven by LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 15 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 16 of38 the deceased Rahul and when they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Village Jaunti, Delhi, a white colour Swift car, bearing registration number HR-10W-3491, which was going ahead of their motorcycle, hit the divider, as a result of which an electric pole fell down with wires and victim's vehicle got entangled in the electricity wires. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver Sachin S/o Sh. Dilbag, in a rash, negligent and zigzag manner. PW1 further deposed that in the accident, he as well as Rahul sustained injuries. PW1 further deposed that he along with deceased Rahul was shifted by PCR van to SGM Hospital, where Rahul was declared brought dead and he had sustained grievous injuries and received treatment vide MLC No. 19277/14.
20. He further deposed that postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri Delhi, vide PMR No. 965/14 dated 06.10.2014, at 11.30 am.
21. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that their motorcycle was being driven by Rahul on the left side of the road and when the accident took place, there was a distance of about 50-100 meters between their motorcycle and the offending vehicle. He deposed that there was no other vehicle besides the car and their motorcycle, at the time of accident and that the offending vehicle did not hit LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 16 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 17 of38 their motorcycle. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 05.10.2014 at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that no accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle or that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Rahul.
22. From the cross examination of PW1, the respondent no.3 failed to elicit any admission, so as to negate the factum of death of the deceased Rahul and injuries sustained by PW1 in a road traffic accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Mere putting suggestion does not substantiate the defence taken by Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3 that the accident has taken place by rash and negligent driving of the victim's vehicle by the deceased Rahul and not because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R1. Even otherwise also, as R1 and R2 has neither filed the written statement nor they appeared to cross-examine any of the petitioner's witness, so as to elicit any admission to the effect that R1 has not caused any accident or R1 is not involved in the present case accident therefore, they also deemed to have admitted occurrence of case accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
23. Thus, on appreciation of evidence that has come on record, it can be safely concluded that no contradictions or LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 17 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 18 of38 material discrepancies had appeared in the cross examination of PW1 Panna Lal Sharma, to discredit his testimony, to such an extent, so as to demolish the case of the petitioners, to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the death of victim Rahul had occasioned therefrom. PW1 had been cross examined at length on behalf of the insurance company/R3, in which his testimony had remained infallible.
24. Further, there is nothing on record which shows that driver of the offending vehicle/R1 has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication in the present case. The fact that the deceased Rahul suffered fatal injuries and PW1 had also suffered injuries in the case accident, is also duly corroborated with MLC of PW1 and post mortem report of the deceased, as per which fatal injuries sustained by the deceased and injuries sustained by PW1 has resulted in a road traffic accident.
25. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record including charge sheet and testimony of PW1 Sh. Panna Lal Sharma, it has been proved by preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 10W 3491, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place and had hit the victim's LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 18 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 19 of38 motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SCB 4227, due to which, the victim Rahul had sustained fatal injuries and victim Panna Lal also sustained injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
26. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation on the account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased Rahul in the above mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
27. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 19 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 20 of38 the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
28. Sh. Ravindra Sharma, father of the deceased, examined himself as PW2. He deposed that the deceased was a supervisor, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He further deposed that the petitioners spent more than Rs.50,000/- on conveyance and last rites of the deceased. He proved his identity by exhibiting his election ID card Ex.PW2/1. He was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance co./R3, wherein he admitted that he is not an eye witness of the case accident and he is having the D.L of the deceased Rahul. He deposed that his year of birth is 1956 and deceased was born on 20.05.1992. He deposed that he is working as farmer for his livelihood and mother of the deceased had expired on 07.01.2018, after the accident, as she has fallen from the roof. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning anything, as on the date of the accident.
29. PW2/Father of deceased Rahul, however, failed to prove on record that the deceased Rahul was working as supervisor and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In his evidence as PW1, brother in law of the deceased namely LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 20 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 21 of38 Panna Lal, who was also an injured deposed that he was working as supervisor in Aravali Industries Ltd. and he has proved on record his certificate of income, issued by his company Ex.PW1/3, mentioning his income as Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, as per contents of FIR, deceased Rahul was also shown to be working as supervisor in Aravali Industries Ltd. But, petitioners failed to prove the said fact, by producing certificate of income issued by the concerned company. Had the deceased Rahul been working as supervisor in Aravali Industries Ltd., then PW2 Ravindra Sharma would have definitely made efforts to produce a certificate from the said company, as similar certificate was issued by the concerned company qua injured Panna Lal. Thus, on appreciation of evidence of PW1 and PW2, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have failed to prove income of deceased Rahul as Rs. 12,000/- per month.
30. The petitioner Ravindra Sharma/PW2 has however placed on record copy of Residence cum Character Certificate of the deceased Ex.PW2/3, as per which, the deceased was shown to be resident of Village Suremanpur, Post Office Sureman Pura, Gram Panchayat, Gangapur, Vikas Khand Bairiya, PS Bairiya, Tehsil Bairiya District Baliya, UP. Petitioners have not placed on record any other proof of residence of the deceased Rahul, to show his residence in Delhi. As such, it can be safely concluded that at the time of accident, the deceased was resident of Uttar Pradesh. LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 21 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 22 of38 Petitioner has also placed on record marksheet in the name of the deceased of Junior High School 2005, along with Migration Certificate issued in the name of the deceased Rahul, duly attested by Principal of Jai Maa Durge Junior High School, Madhubani Baliya, which reflects that deceased was educated upto Junior High School i.e. 8 th standard. Further, the petitioners have failed to establish on record that the deceased Rahul knew/learnt any skill or have expertise in any work. Accordingly, the deceased is entitled to minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Uttar Pradesh, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident. As per the notification, the Minimum Wage in Uttar Pradesh from October 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015, for an unskilled person is Rs. 246.75 per day. Therefore, monthly minimum wages would come to Rs. 7402.50/- per month (246.75 x30 days). Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.7402.50 /- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident in question i.e. on 05.10.2014.
31. As per the case of petitioners, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Marksheet in the name of deceased for Junior High School 2005 along with Migration Certificate, issued in the name of deceased Rahul, duly attested by Principal of Jai Maa Durge Junior High School, Madhubani Baliya, which reflects that deceased was educated upto Junior High School i.e. 8 th LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 22 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 23 of38 standard, and his date of birth was mentioned as 20.05.1992. The date of accident in the present case is 05.10.2014. Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 22 years 04 months and 15 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
32. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.2017.
33. PW2 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW2/A) that both the petitioners were totally dependent upon the deceased. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3 has failed to elicit anything on record, which reflects that the petitioners were gainfully employed and not dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, both legal heirs of the LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 23 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 24 of38 deceased at the time of accident, which includes his mother and father are entitled to receive compensation, being dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/3rd of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining 2/3rd of his income towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members.
34. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that as on the date of accident, there were two dependents i.e. mother and father of the deceased. However, as per evidence of PW1, mother of deceased also expired on 07.01.2018. However, deduction is to be calculated as to the number of dependents as on the date of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one third as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 14,92,344/- (7402.50 + 40% (2,961) = 10363.50 - 1/3rd (3454.50) = 6909 x 12 x 18). Hence, a sum of Rs.14,92,344/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 24 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 25 of38 Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that mother and father of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 25 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 26 of38 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of petitioners.
38. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs.14,92,344 -
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 88,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 16,10,344/-
________________
(After rounding off to Rs.16,10,344 /-) (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Ten Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four only).
39. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 13.07.2015 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7% per annum from LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 26 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 27 of38 the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 13.07.2015 till realization of the compensation amount.
40. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
41. In the case in hand, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has raised the defence that as per verification report in respect of DL of R1 as annexed with the DAR, no record of DL in the name of R1 was found available at the office DTO, Tuensang Nagaland and the said report is dated 30.05.2015 and exhibited by respondent's witness/R3W1 as Ex.R3W1/4. It is further stated that the IO has further got the said DL verified and placed on record verification report dated 26.11.2015, as per which, driving license of R1 was found valid, as on the date of accident. The said report was marked by PW3/IO as Mark PW3/X1. But, when PW3 was subjected to cross- examination qua Mark PW3/X1, it has came on record that the IO has never filed the original report even before concerned Magistrate court and that is why the report as placed on record, was also certified by copying agency as copy to copy. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the report Mark PW3/X1 has not been duly proved and hence, LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 27 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 28 of38 cannot be taken into consideration.
42. But, as per original verification report Ex. R3W1/4, which was also relied by witness of R3 i.e R3W1, it was only mentioned that no record of DL of R1 was found available and the said report is dated 30.05.2015 and in their written arguments itself, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3 that as per circular no. 23/MV/2007(PT-1/Kohima dated 01.08.2014, of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland, the license holder having booklet or any manual formats, other than smart card were to report to the office, from where they have issued, for the purpose of including their data and subsequent issue in smart card latest by December 2014, after which driving license other than smart card shall be considered cancelled. Even if the said report is taken into consideration on its face value, then also, merely because on 30.05.2015, the records of DL in name of R1 was not found with the concerned authority, is not sufficient to treat the DL of R1 as fake, as in view of circular no. 23/MV/2007(PT-1/Kohima dated 01.08.2014, of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland, as relied by R3, all the earlier license were considered cancelled after December 2014. But, in the present case, since the accident has taken place on 05.10.2014 thus, even if the said circular is taken into consideration, then also R1 was having time till December 2014, for the purpose of issuance of smart card license. Thus, merely because he has not applied for the LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 28 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 29 of38 smart card till October 2014 i.e at the time of accident and the concerned authority has not retained the earlier record, the license of R1 cannot be said to be fake.
43. Even otherwise also, in his evidence, the IO/PW3 deposed that after the accident, a constable went to Nagaland for verification of DL of R1, however, he after coming back, informed him that due to flood type situation there, he reached at wrong authority and as such, no record of the driving licence of R1 was found available at that office and accordingly, he filed the said report with DAR, which is Ex. R3W1/4. Thus, in his evidence, the IO, who has filed the said report admitted that Ex. R3W1/4 is not a correct report. Thus, even report Ex. R3W1/4 cannot be said to be duly proved.
44. The onus of proving the DL of R1 as fake is on R3 but, R3 failed to summon any witness from concerned authority, so as to prove that the stamp on license of R1 was fake or that report Ex. R3W1/4 is correct report. This, even report Ex. R3W1/4 cannot be taken into consideration. And since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners as per law.
45. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 29 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 30 of38 Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.16,10,344 /- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
46. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 03.02.2022 regarding savings bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 30 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 31 of38 case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
47. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. During the course of trial, petitioner no.1 Maya Devi has expired and her LRs namely Dharmender Kumar Vishwakarma, Hema Sharma, Neha Sharma and Raghavender were impleaded and they, however, filed their no objection stating that award be passed in favour of petitioner no.2 Ravinder Sharma. Their joint statement to this effect has been recorded on 20.09.2024. Therefore, award is to be disbursed in favour of petitioner no.2 Ravindra Sharma. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, an amount of Rs.2,10,344/- be released to petitioner no. 2 namely Ravindra Sharma, in his bank account no. 40496453413 both with SBI, Branch Kotwa, Code 6285, Kotwa, Raniganj, UP i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 31 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 32 of38 be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 56 months of equal amount respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
48. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 32 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 33 of38 account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
49. As discussed above, Royal Sundaram Alliance General LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 33 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 34 of38 Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.16,10,344 /- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 13.07.2015 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
50. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
51. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
52. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
53. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 34 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 35 of38 Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022- 22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
54. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
55. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 06.04.2021 wherein she had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 35 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 36 of38 deducted.
56. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. Digitally signed SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.05.01 16:41:22 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 24th April, 2024 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 36 of38 LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 37 of38 FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 05.10.2014
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Rahul
3. Age of the deceased: About 22 years 04 months and 15 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private Service
5. Income of the deceased:Minimum wages Rs.7402.50/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Maya Devi (deceased) W/o Sh. Brother and
Ravinder Sharma
sisters
through her LRs:
(a) Dharmender Kumar (they have given
Vishwakarma their no objection
S/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma, vide statement
R/o Village & Post Sureman Pur, dated 20.09.2018
PS & Tehsil Bairiya, that the award be
District Balia, UP passed in favour
(b) Raghwendra Vishwakarma of Sh. Ravinder
S/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Sharma.
R/o H.No. 10, Village Gangapur,
Sureman Pur, Balia, UP -277208
(c) Hema Sharma
W/o Sh. Anil Sharma
D/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o Village Maharajpur,
Chandpur, Balia, UP -277201
(d) Neha Sharma'
W/o Sh. Deepak Sharma
D/o Sh. Ravinder Sharma,
R/o Sureman Pur, Balia, UP-277208
(ii) Sh. Ravindra Sharma 55 years Father
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 37 of38
LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 38 of38
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.7402.50/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs.2961/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.10363.50-
{ (A+B) - C =D}
3450.50=6909/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.82,908 /-
12. Multiplier (E) 1813. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs.14,92,344/-
F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.16,10,344/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 9,89,780.04 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.26,00,180.04 (rounded (L+M) off to Rs.26,00,181/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.2,10,344/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.23,89,781/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 23.05.2024 award. (Clause 31) SHAMA Digitally signed by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.05.01 16:41:11 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 24th April, 2024 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi LRs of Rahul vs. Sachin and Ors. Page 38 of38