Delhi District Court
Vikash vs Vikram Singh And Ors on 23 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
MACP No. :696/2017
FIR No. 75/2017
PSRewari, DisttGRP, Ambala Cantt.
CNR No. DLSW010061252017
1. Sh. Vikash (Husband of the deceased
S/o Sh. Ram Ratan,
R/o H. No. C565, IInd Floor,
Gali No. 45, Shani Bazaar Chowk,
Mahavir Enclave, PartIII, SouthWest59
Permanent r/o of Village Budhani, Dharuhera,
District, DisttRewari, Haryana ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Vikram Singh (driver)
S/o Sh. Devchand
R/o Village Dumoli Khurd,
Buhana, DisttJhunjhunu,
Rajasthan
2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Shishram
R/o VillageDumoli Khurd,
Buhana, DisttJhunjhunu, Rajasthan
3. RAHEJA QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
5th Floor, Windsor House, CST Road,
Kalina, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai400098 ... Respondents
Date of institution on 01.06.2017
Date of Judgment - 23.09.23
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 1
JUDGMENT
1. The present Application/Petition Under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for grant of compensation has been filed qua death of deceasedKalpana caused in a road accident which took place on 17.05.2017.
2. CLAIM:
The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 17.05.2017 at about 09.30 AM, the petitioner alongwith his deceased wife Kalpana Singh was coming from the house of his friend to their house on motorcycle bearing NO. HR36Z3347 and when they reached near the Railway Fatak at Pali, he stopped his bike after found the fatak closed. In the meantime, at about 11.00 AM, a Mahendra Pickup vehicle No. RJ142G3766 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) came from behind with high speed, rashly and negligently after hitting a motorcycle standing behind him, hit his motorcycle. Consequently, he and his wife received grievous injuries and removed to hospital and later on, the wife of the petitioner had passed away due to the injury received in the abovesaid accident.
It is also stated that in this regard, an FIR NO. 75/017 U/s 279/336/337 IPC was registered at P.S. Rewari, Distt, GRP Ambala Cantt.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 2 It is also stated that this accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No1, at the time of accident.
It is also stated that at the time of accident, deceased was 23 years old and was working as Senior Executive at Jai Engineers and Fabrications and was earning Rs. 19,000/ and she was contributing her salary towards the family.
It has been prayed that an award for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/(Rs. One Crore onlymay be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. DEFENCE:
It is relevant to pen down here that no reply has been filed by the respondent no. 1.
Reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which allegations levelled in the petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that involment of the offending vehicle is specifically denied, alternatively, alleged accident, if any caused, was solely due to the negligence of petitioner/claimant. It is also stated that at the time of alleged accident, the respondent No. 2 entrusted the offending vehicle to respondent o. 1 voluntarily, willingly and legally and the respondent no. 1 had valid driving license bearing No. RJ 18 20130009923. It is also stated that offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3, hence the respondent no. 2 is not liable to pay the compensation. There is also prayer for the dismissal of the present petition.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 3 Written Statement filed on behalf of R3 it is stated that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain present petition. It is also stated that offending vehicle no. RJ 14 2G 3766 was insured with respondent no.3 vide Policy bearing No.RQBEMT06129 in the name of of respondent no. 2Sanjay Kumar valid for period from 03.08.2016 to 02.08.2017 subject to the certain term and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that no accident occurred on 17.05.2017 at about 11.00 AM, Railway Fatak, VillagePali Kund, DisttRewari, Haryana.
4. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Kalpana sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dtd. 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Mahinder PickUp) No. RJ 14 2G 3766 being driven by Vikram Singh, owned by Sanjay Kumar and insured by Raheja QBE General Insurance Co.
Ltd. ?.... OPP?.
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ?...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 4 PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents.
S. No. of Details of Document
No. Exhibits
1. Ex.PW1/1 Copy of ChargeSheet
2. Ex.PW1/2 Photocopy of Medico Legal Report of
Pushpanjali Hospital
3. Ex. PW1/3 Bills of treatment and Medicines
4. Ex. PW1/4 Photocopy of Aadhar card of Vikash
5. Ex. PW1/5 Photocopy of Aadhar card of deceased
6. Ex. PW1/6 Photocopy of Marriage Certificate
7. Ex. PW1/7 Photocopy of 10th class certificate of
deceased
8. Ex. PW1/8 Photocopy of 12th class certificate of
deceased
9. Ex. PW1/9 Photocopy of B.A. Semester Marksheet of
deceased
10. Ex. PW1/10 Photocopy of caste certificate of deceased
11. Ex. PW1/11 Photocopy of receiving of application for applying for merit scholarship of SC/ST/OBC/MIN. Students of College of deceased
12. Ex. PW1/12 Copy of certificate issued by employer of his deceased wife Kalpana Singh
13. Ex. PW1/13 Petition
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
It is relevant to pen down here that respondent no. 1 and 2 did not come forward to lead evidence.
The respondent no. 3 got examined IO/ASIRandhir Singh as R3W1.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 5 S. No. of Details of Document No. Exhibits/Mar ks
1. MarkA Photocopy of complaint furnished by deceasedKalpana at P.S.Dabri received by DD entry No. 42B dated 17.11.2016
2. MarkB Photocopy of complaint dated 01.12.2016 made by complaint
3. MarkC Copy of DD No. 15B dated 28.05.2017 P.SDabri registered at the instance of complaint made by fatherChet Ram of the deceased
4. MarkD Photocopy of FIR
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1Whether Kalpana sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dtd. 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Mahinder PickUp) No. RJ 14 2G 3766 being driven by Vikram Singh, owned by Sanjay Kumar and insured by Raheja QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. ?....
OPP?.
The onus to prove this issue has been conferred upon the petitioner.
In order to discharge his onus, the petitioner got examined (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 6 himself as PW01. He testified that on 17.05.2017 at about 09.30 AM, he alongwith his deceased wifeKalpana Singh started from house of his friend wife on motorcycle bearing NO. HR36Z 3347 and when they reached near the Railway Fatak at Pali, he stopped his bike after found the fatak closed. In the meantime, at about 11.00 AM, offending vehicle No. RJ142G3766 came from behind with high speed, rashly and negligently after hitting a motorcycle standing behind him, hit his motorcycle. Consequently, he and his wife thrown away of motorcycle. His wife received grievous injuries and he received gum chot. He found his wife fallen on road holding her stomach and she said that she cannot stand up. She was removed in car with the help of public and were taken to Pushpanjali Hospital, Rewari but she succumbed to her injuries in the said hospital during treatment.
He also deposed that in this regard, an FIR NO. 75/017 U/s 279/336/337 IPC has been registered at P.S. Rewari, Distt, GRP Ambala Cantt.
He also testified that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
It is worthwhile to mention here that during cross examination, PW01 Vikash statedthat the offending vehicle hit them from behind with a great force. He denied the suggestion that his wife had not died due to road traffic accident. He also denied the suggestion that offending vehicle did not cause the accident.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 7 It is relevant to pen down here that the crossexamination of PW1Vikash carried on by ld. counsels for the respondents no is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioner.
On the other hand, respondent no. 3/insurance company got examined IOASI Randhir Singh. He deposed that he was IO of the case registered at the instance of the complaint furnished by deceasedKalpna at P.S.Dabri received by DD Entry No. 42B dated 17.11.2016. Copy of the same was MarkA. One complaint dated 01.12.2016 was also made by deceased. Copy of the same was MarkB. DD No. 15B dated 28.05.2017 P.S.Dabri was registered as the instance of complaint made by the father of the deceased namely Chet Ram. FIR No. 368/17 PSDabri, U/s 354A/509/34 IPC had already been registered on the basis of previous DD entry. He had transferred from the police station. The original record can be called from the police station.
It is also relevant to pen down here that during the crossexamination, PW1Vikash admitted that family of his in laws and his wife had lodged police complaint of life threats, however, the matter was compromised in CAW Cell and no FIR was registered. He admitted that after the death of his wife Kalpana, his fatherinlaw Chet Ram has got a DD entry bearing No. 15B done in PSDabri, Delhi on 28.05.2017 about death of his wife being not accidental. However, the police had closed ht said case. He denied the suggestion that police had not closed the (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 8 said case and police was still investigating the matter.
I have gone through the abovesaid MarkA dated 17.11.2016 and MarkB dated 01.12.2016 of deceased. Both MarkA and MarkB are complaint of the deceased regarding matrimonial dispute against her husband and his other relatives and FIR No. 368/17 P.S.Dabri Ex. MarkD was registered on the basis of MarkA. So far as MarkC dated 28.05.2017 is concerned, it is complaint of fatherChet Ram Sanjay of the deceased in which he stated that on 14.05.2017 on the request of Vikashusband of the deceased, he had sent the deceasedKalpana to her matrimonial home and after reaching there, she had confirmed her reaching in matrimonial home. Further, it is requested that thorough investigation may be conducted regarding the accident as he had doubt regarding the manner of the accident.
It is relevant to pen down here that the respondent No. 3/insurance company has not proved on record whether any investigation/reinvestigation was conducted on the basis of complaint made by father of the deceased.
I have also gone through the photocopy of PostMortem Report placed on file. As per the PostMortem Report, "Cause of death in this case is due to injuries described which are ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of life (Shock and Haemorrage).
From the medical abovemedical report, it is clear that the deceasedKalpana died due the injuries sustained by her and injuries are antemortem.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 9 It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry/trial. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ14 2G 3766.
Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely Vikram Singh (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/336/337/304(A) IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ14 2G 3766 by respondent no. 1.
Even otherwise, while determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 10 mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
16. This aspect has also been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012.
The Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 11 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that deceased Kalpana sustained fatal injures and died in motor accident dated 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. RJ 14 2G 3766 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 Vikram Singh, owned by Sanjay Kumar and insured with R3/ Raheja QBE General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that victimKalpana died in a vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bearing No. RJ 14 2G 3766 by respondent no. 1.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 12 09. ISSUE No. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
10. The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioner.
In order to discharge his onus, the petitionerVikash examined himself as PW01. As per his testimony, on 17.05.2017 at about 9.30 AM., her wife namely Kalpana Singh met with an accident and received fatal injuries and resultantly died.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Kalpana received fatal injuries & died in motor vehicle accident dated 17.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle which was being driven by R1Vikram Singh.
In light of above, the petitioner, being the LR of deceased Kalpana has become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner is ascertained under the following heads :
11. AGE & MULTIPLIER:
It is relevant to pen down here that PW01Vikash deposed that his deceased wife was about 23 years of age at the time of accident. He relied upon Ex. PW1/7 i.e 10th class (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 13 certificate of deceased. As per this, her date of birth was 10.11.1993. So, we take the age of deceasedKalpana as 23 years at the time of accident.
As per the mandate of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr, a multiplier of 18 is applicable for the age of 23 years.
12. INCOME AND PROFESSION:
In the instant case, PW01Vikash deposed that deceasedKalpana Singh was working as Executive at Jai Engineers & Fabricators Works A68, Saraswati Enclave, near Himgiri Public School, Gurgaon and with office address at Plot No. 298, Sector7, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon and was earning 19,000/ and she was permanent employee in the company. He also relied upon the Ex. PW1/12 i.e. copy of Certificate issued by employer of his deceased wifeKalpana Singh.
I have gone through the alleged document i.e. Ex. PW1/12. It is allegedly issued by Jai Engineers & Fabricators on its letterhead.
It is relevant to pen down here that petitioner has not called from the said alleged company to prove her employment and salary. Mere filing a document on behalf of alleged company has not proved the employment and salary of the deceased automatically.
Petitioner should have called from the said company to prove the employment and salary of the deceased as stated above.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 14 Hence, here it is said that the petitioner has failed to prove that the deceasedKalpana was working with Jai Engineers & Fabricators and was earning Rs. 19,000/.
PW1Vikash further deposed that deceased did her 10 th and 12th from Govt. Girls S.S. DDA Flats, DBlk, Bindapura and also did her graduation from Gargi College, Delhi, University. He also relied upon Ex. PW1/7 i.e. photocopy of 10th Class certificate of deceased, Ex. PW1/8 i.e. photocopy of 12 th class certificate of deceased and Ex. PW1/9 i.e. photocopy of B.A. Semester Marksheet of deceased.
I have also gone through the photocopy of educational documents i.e. EX. PW1/7 and PW1/8. EX. PW1/7 is photocopy of Delhi Certificate of Secondary School Examination, 2010 and Ex. PW1/8 i.e. photocopy of Delhi Senior School Certificate Examination, 2012 allegedly issued by Central Board of Secondary Education.
I have also gone through the photocopy of document i.e.PW1/8. It is photocopy of Statementof Marks of IV Semester allegedly issued by Univesity of Delhi.
It is worthy to note here that it is not the Degree of B.A. but only the marksheet of 4th Semester.
It is relevant to pen down here that during the cross examination of PW01Vikash, no specific question has been put up regarding educational certificate of deceased.
Therefore, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages for Matriculate. As per the (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 15 photocopy of Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/5, the deceased was resident of Delhi. Hence, the minimum wages for Matriculate person applicable in the State of Delhi when the accident took place (17.05.2017) shall be considered. The same is ₹16,468/ per month.
Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi1, the deceased would also have future prospects @ 40% as he was 23 years of age at the time of accident.
13. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
Although, the respondent no. 3/insurance company got examined R3W1/IOASIRandhir Singh to prove that there was dispute between the deceased and her husband/petitioner Vikash but it is not disputed during arguments or even otherwise that at the time of accident, petitionerVikash was husband of the deceasedKalpana. Furthermore, in the complaint made by the father of the deceased, he also stated that at request of petitionerVikash, he had sent his daughter to her house.
Thus, petitioner will be considered dependent upon the deceased.
In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr, being married, one Fourth (1/3rd ) of the income of the 1 (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 16 deceased is liable to be deducted from her total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
In view of the above, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceasedKalpana can be calculated as under:.
S. HEAD AMOUNT
No.
1. Income of the deceased ₹16,468/
2 40% addition towards future Rs. 23,055.2
prospects (Rs.16,468/
+6587.2)
3. 1/3rd (one Third) deduction Rs. 7685.06 towards on personal and living expenses of deceased.
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 15,370.14 (23,055.2 7685.06)
5. Total loss of dependency to the 15,370.14 x12x18) family due to death of deceased = Rs. 33,19,950.24 Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceasedSmt. Kalpana comes to Rs. 33,19,950.24 (Rs. Thirty Three lakhs Nineteen (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 17 Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty and Paise Twenty Four only) and as such, the petitioner shall be entitled to the said amount i.e ₹33,19,950.24 as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
15. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, a sum of ₹16,500/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
16. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi3, a sum of ₹ 16,500/ is awarded to the petitioner towards ' funeral expenses'.
17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In given fact and circumstances of the case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and United India Insurance 2
3. (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 18 Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur4, a sum of ₹ 44,000/ (₹ 44,000/ x 1) is awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium'.
18. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioner have been tabulated as below : S. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1 Loss of dependency ₹ 33,19,950.24 2 Loss of consortium ₹ 44,000/ 3 For funeral expenses ₹ 16,500/ 4 Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/ TOTAL ₹ 33,96,950.24 Rounded off to Rs.
33,97,000/ Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹ 33,97,000/ (Rs. Thirty Three Lakhs and Ninety Seven Thousand only).
19. INTEREST:
In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and 4 (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 19 circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e. ₹33,97,000/ (Rs. Thirty Three Lakhs and Ninety Seven Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition i.e. 01.06.2017 till its realization.
20. LIABILITY:
Now coming to the extent of liability.
It has already been held that the deceased had expired due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. He is primarily liable to make payment, but, the offending vehicle bearing no. RJ14 2G 3766 was being driven by R1 Vikram Singh, owned by respondent no. 2Sanjay Kumar and insured with R3/ Raheja QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3 / Raheja QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
21. ISSUE NO.3 (RELIEF)
26. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no.3Raheja (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 20 QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay ₹ ₹33,97,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 01.06.2017 till its realization within 30 days from today to the petitioner. Amount of interim compensation (if any) be deducted from this amount.
22. APPORTIONMENT:
Since there is only one petitioner, hence, the abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹33,97,000/ shall be given to the petitoner.
FORMIVA
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE
INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 17.05.2017
ii). Name of the deceased : Kalpana
iii). Age of the deceased : 23 years (at the time
of accident)
iv). Occupation of the : Private job (not proved)
Deceased
v). Income of the deceased : ₹ 16,468/ per month.
(Minimum Wages)
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 21 (at present) I Vikash 26 years Husband Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹ 16,468/ per month.
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) (40%) ₹ 16,468/ (A+B) +6587.2=23,055.2 per month
3. LessPersonal expenses of the ₹ 7685.06 deceased (C) (one third )
4. Monthly loss of dependency {(A+B} Rs. 23,055.27685.06= C=D Rs. 15,370.14
5. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 15,370.14X12= Rs.
[ DX12] 1,84,441.68
6. Multiplier (E) 18
7. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹ 1,84,441.68x18= Rs.
33,19,950.24
8. Medical Expenses (G)
9 Compensation for loss of love and
affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium ₹44,000/ (44,000 x 1) (I)
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹16,500/
12. Compensation towards funeral ₹16,500/ expenses (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹ 33,96,950.24 (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rounded off to Rs.
33,97,000/
14. Deduction of Interim Award Nil (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 22 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from (M) the date of filing of petition i.e. 01.06.2017 till its realization.
16. Total amount including interest ₹33,97,000/ + @9% per ( L+M) annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 01.06.2017 till its realization.
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioner
20. Next Date for compliance of the 13.11.2023 award. (Clause 31)
23. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondent no. 3/Raheja QBE General Insurance Co. Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioner and his counsel, to the Nazir of this court.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 23 In view of the fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . at the Award Amount N time o of accid ent (App rox.) 1 Vikash Husba 26 ₹ ₹ ₹ 30,50,000/ be . nd years ₹33,97,000/ 3,47,000/ kept in 80 FDRs of ₹ 38,125/ each for the period from 1 month to 80 months in the name of petitioner 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.).
24. In the instant case, it has been stated that a Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioner has already been opened at Nationalized bank.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 24 Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amounts to the abovesaid saving bank account of the abovesaid petitioner after due verification and as per rules and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Managers of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner's bank) are directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
(MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 25 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 abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same has 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 petitioner.
The abovesaid 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.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 13.11.2023.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.09.23 (Announced in the open Court 16:19:01 +0530 on this day of 23rd September 2023 (Rekha) PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (MACT No.696/17) Vikash Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors. 26