Delhi District Court
Rahat Parveen (Wife Of The Deceased) vs Pankaj Kumar (Driver) on 7 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 512/2019
CNR No. DLCT010093522019
1. Rahat Parveen (wife of the deceased)
W/o Late Mohd. Tamanne
2. Mohd. Sufiyan (son of the deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Tamanne
Both Residents of :
Village & Post Office Basuki Bihari,
District Madhubani, Bihar847305
Presently At:
H. No. AB223, Amarpuri,
Tel Mill Gali, Nabi Karim,
Paharganj, New Delhi110055.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Pankaj Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Saligram,
R/o P.S. Shambhuganj,
Distt. Banka State Bihar.
2. Jawahar Yadav & Manoj Kumar Yadav (Owner)
Both sons of Sh. Garib Yadav,
R/o 9819, Gali No. 7, Multani Dhanda,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Also At:
377, Jharsa Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019
Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 1 of 38
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
having its serving office at 1001,
LGF, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road,
Naiwala Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110055.
....... Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 16.07.2019
Date of filing Claim Petition: 09.12.2019
Arguments concluded on: 28.02.2022
Date of passing of Award: 07.03.3022
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
16.07.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of an accident which took place on 07.10.2018 at about 10:00
PM at Qutub Road, nearby park in front of Kabir Hotel at Nabi
Karim, Delhi wherein Mohd. Tamnne had sustained fatal injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 07.10.2018 at about 10:00 PM, the deceased Mohd. Tamanne was going to Qutub Road nearby Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim, Delhi. In the meantime, a Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR55R6889 came from Qutub Road Side and the driver of the truck turned it towards Kabir Hotel and forcefully hit the deceased due to which reason the deceased Mohd. Tamanne came under the offending vehicle. The injured Mohd. Tamanne was taken to RML Hospital where he was Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 2 of 38 declared brought dead and his MLC was prepared. An FIR bearing No. 340/2018 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Nabi Karim on the basis of statement of eye witness Ram Chander who is running a kiosk/ Khoka of Pan Biri near Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim, Delhi. The offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No. HR 55R6889 was found stationed and the driver of the offending vehicle namely Pankaj Kumar was apprehended by ASI Girdhari who was on picket duty.
(3) A common written statement/ reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar and respondent no.2 Manoj Kumar wherein it is pleaded that the respondent no.2 got the offending vehicle insured comprehensively with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. which vehicle was reportedly involved in accident on 08.10.2018. According to the respondent, the driver was possessing a valid driving license to drive the Truck and the offending vehicle was insured by respondent no.3 and liability if any is upon the respondent no.3. It is also pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligent of the deceased himself.
(4) In their reply to the DAR/ Claim Petition respondent no.3 Shriram General Insurance Company has pleaded that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR and despite the fact that the alleged eye witness and also an ASI was present on the spot the police did not make any DD entry nor any police record is found of the same day. It is further pleaded that the said ASI who was allegedly present at the spot Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 3 of 38 did not report the accident but it is after his duty was over that the matter was reported. It is further pleaded that the dead body was identified after three days and there is no information that how they come to know about the deceased since neither any missing report was made by his relatives who was working in Delhi nor any publication made by the police regarding identification of dead body. (5) Here, I may note that vide order dated 30.09.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal had imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/ upon the Insurance Company payable to the petitioners for not filing the reply on time. On 25.10.2019 when the Insurance Company filed the reply as above, the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal had observed that the reply filed by Insurance Company is a simple formality and does not even state any denial or admission of policy in question, pursuant to which further cost of Rs.5,000/ was imposed upon the Insurance Company payable to the petitioner. The said cost was not paid by the Insurance Company and hence, vide order dated 20.11.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal closed the opportunity of Insurance Company to file the written statement/ reply and it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to recover the awarded amount in accordance with law.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(6) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 20.11.2019 the following issues were settled by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal:
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 4 of 38
1. Whether deceased Mohd. Tamanne sustained fatal injuries in the road accident which occurred on 07.10.2018 at 10:00 PM within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi?
2. Whether the truck bearing registration No. HR55R6889 driven by Pankaj Kumar was involved in the above said accident?
3. If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration No. HR55R6889?
4. If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
5. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove their case, the Legal Heirs of the deceased have examined three witnesses. Rahat Parveen wife of the deceased has examined herself as PW1; Mohd. Arif brother of the deceased has examined himself as PW2 and the eye witness Sh. Ram Chander has been examined as PW3. In so far as the respondents are concerned they have not examined any witness despite having been granted opportunities in this regard.
(8) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the petitioners are put in a tabulated form as under:
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 5 of 38 S. Witness Deposition No.
1. Rahat Parveen PW1 Rahat Parveen is the wife of the deceased Mohd.
(PW1) Tamanne who in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 has corroborated the version of police in the DAR. She has placed her reliance on the Detailed Accident Report which is Ex.PW1/1 (Colly, running into 110 pages) and copy of her Aadhar Card bearing No. 570093366374 which is Ex.PW1/2.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That she is not an eye witness to the accident. That she got the information with regard to the accident on the third day when the dead body was received by them.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased was a permanent resident of Bihar and has voluntarily explained that they had gone to Bihar for one month.
That she had never casted her vote in Delhi nor her husband ever casted his vote in Delhi and has voluntarily explained that they both used to cast their vote in their native village i.e. Basuki Bihari, District Madhubani, P.S. Madhuapur, Bihar.
That they have a ration card bearing the name of her husband which is of their village address at Bihar. That her inlaws used to take benefit of the ration card.
That they have no separate ration card in Delhi. That she is residing in Nabi Karim for the last about 15 years under the tenancy of Mohd. Akbar situated near Old Police Chowki, Nabi Karim, Delhi.
That she is not aware if any police verification was conducted regarding the tenancy.
She she has not filed any document which shows that her deceased husband was doing the work of manufacturing of leather bags or that he was earning Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per month. That her husband was employed alongwith her brother namely Mohd. Arif and has voluntarily Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 6 of 38 explained that her husband used to get the raw material from her brother and prepare leather bags at home and supply the same.
That she cannot produce any document relating to purchase or supply of the raw material / finished material.
That her husband was not having any bank account in Delhi but he had a bank account in Bihar.
2. Mohd. Arif PW2 Mohd. Arif is brotherinlaw (Sala) of the deceased (PW2) Mohd. Tamanne who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 has stated as under:
1. That he along with Mohd. Azmal (brother of the deceased) identified the dead body of deceased Mohd. Tamanne with the police officials called him at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 11.10.2018, which receipt of dead body is Ex.PW2/1 and copy of his Aadhar Card bearing No. 399010918346 is Ex.PW2/2.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That he is not an eye witness to the accident.
That deceased Mohd. Tamanne was his brotherin law (husband of his sister) who used to reside in separate room and used to work separately from him. That he got the information with regard to the accident on 10.10.2018 from Police Station Nabi Karim and has voluntarily explained that Mohd. Tamanne was missing from the last three days.
That he made several calls to the deceased Mohd. Tamanne as well as to the police station for making enquiry about Mohd. Tamanne.
That he has never made any written complaint to the police station regarding missing of Mohd. Tamanne and has voluntarily explained that he requested police official to receive his complaint in this regard but the same was not accepted.
That he never made any complaint to higher police officials in this regard.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 7 of 38
3. Sh. Ram PW3 Sh Ram Chander is the eye witness of accident in his Chander examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects: (PW3) 1. That he is having a Thaiya of Pan Biri near Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim, Delhi.
2. That he does not remember the date of the accident.
3. That about two years ago, an accident took place opposite Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim in a gali of 20 feet adjoining the Qutub Road.
4. That on that day, he saw that a person was lying in a pool of blood under the tyre of a truck on its rear/ left side.
5. That he came to know from the public persons gathered at the spot about the injured.
6. That police made inquiries from him and obtained his signatures on some papers.
Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement made before the police, therefore Ld. Counsel for the petitioner put certain questions to the witness, to which the witness has deposed as under:
That the incident had occurred at about 10:00 PM. That he does not remember the exact date of accident.
That he did not try to chase the driver of the truck.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, the witness has deposed as under: That he had not seen the accident and has voluntarily explained that he has reached the spot after some time as soon as he heard the noise.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the accident took place in the centre of the road and has voluntarily deposed that the accident took place on the left side of the road.
That he cannot tell the number of the truck.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that he has come to the court to depose at the behest of the petitioner.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 8 of 38 FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(9) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioners and the respondent no.3. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether deceased Mohd. Tamanne sustained fatal injuries in the road accident which occurred on
07.10.2018 at 10:00 PM within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi?
Issue No.2: Whether the truck bearing registration No. HR55R 6889 driven by Pankaj Kumar was involved in the above said accident?
Issue No.3: If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration No. HR55R6889?
(10) All the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion.
(11) The case of the petitioners is that on 07.10.2018 at about 10:00 PM, the deceased Mohd. Tamanne was going to Qutub Road nearby Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim, Delhi. In the meantime, a Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR55R6889 came from Qutub Road Side and the driver of the truck turned it towards Kabir Hotel and forcefully hit the deceased due to which reason the deceased Mohd. Tamanne Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 9 of 38 came under the rear tyre of the offending vehicle. Mohd. Tamanne was taken to RML Hospital where he was declared brought dead and his MLC was prepared.
(12) In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, in their written statement they have simply stated that the accident in question had occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. The respondents have admitted the accident by implication. (13) I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record including the DAR and the documents attached along with the same. I have also gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the petitioners.
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(14) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No. HR55R6889, I may note that the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar has nowhere disputed that he was the driver of the offending vehicle.
Rather, in the written statement to the DAR, the respondent no.1 has admitted that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. In fact the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar has been chargesheeted in the criminal case bearing FIR No. 340/2018, under Sections 279/304A IPC, PS Nabi Karim. This being the background, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No. HR55R6889 stands established.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 10 of 38 Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1:
(15) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the negligence of the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar. In this regard, the petitioners have examined the alleged eye witness namely Ram Chander (PW3) who is having a Thaiya of PaanBiri near Kabir Hotel, Nabi Karim. In so far as the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar is concerned, though he has alleged that accident had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased but he has not examined any witness. (16) I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the petitioners and the documents placed on record. A perusal of the copy of chargesheet filed along with the DAR shows that on 07.10.2018 an information vide DD No. 53A was received at Police Station Nabi Karim regarding accident on which SI Ram Avtar reached the spot where he found a Truck bearing No. HR55R6889 at the spot and an injured was lying in a pool of blood under the left side rear tyres of the truck. ASI Girdhari was also found present at the spot who produced the driver of the offending vehicle and on inquiry his name was revealed as Pankaj Kumar S/o Saligram, R/o Village Shamboganj, Distt. Banka, Bihar. The injured was thereafter shifted to RML Hospital who was declared 'Brought Dead'. The PCR Caller namely Ram Chander was also found at the spot who claimed himself to be an eye witness, informed the Investigating Officer that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligence driving of Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 11 of 38 the driver of truck who while taking a turn towards Kabir Hotel hit a pedestrian. Here, I may note that this Ram Chander has been examined by the petitioner as PW3 but he has resiled from his previous statement given to the police. According to Ram Chander, he had not seen the accident and reached the spot only after hearing the noise. (17) I may note that as a general rule the petitioner is required to prove negligence but in certain cases where the family of the deceased is only able to prove the accident but is unable to prove the origin of negligence, then under the given circumstances the principle of res ipsa loquitur if found applicable, can always be considered. Sir William Erle in the case of Scott Vs. London & St. Katherine Docks Co.
reported in (1865) 3 HC 596 applied the said principle and observed as under:
".....Where the thing is shown is under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such, as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care. Then in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, it can be presumed that the accident arose for want of care. In such cases mere happening of the accident affords a reasonable evidence in the absence of any explanation by the defendant that it was due to the negligence of the defendant......"
(18) This doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the present case as no evidence to the contrary has come on record. Though the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar alleged that the accident had Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 12 of 38 taken place due to negligent of the deceased himself yet he has not examined any witness to prove his case and the entire evidence led by the petitioners has gone unrebutted. The eye witness Ram Chander (PW3) has denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place in the center/ middle of the road. According to him, the accident had taken place on the left side of the road.
(19) The presence of this witness Ram Chander (PW3) at the spot is natural as he is running a Thaiya of PaanBiri in the area which Thaiya/ shop is also shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and forming a part of the DAR.
(20) Also, the copy of Mobile Crime Team Report which forms a part of a DAR, shows that on examination of scene of crime dead body of a male aged about 35 years was found lying dead with blood oozing out from head under the truck near left rear wheel and Blood stains were found present on left side rear wheel (outer). This confirms that the case of the petitioners that the accident had taken place while the offending vehicle was taking a turn towards its left side. The respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar was apprehended at the spot of accident itself and the offending vehicle was also found present at the spot when police reached there.
(21) It is a settled law that a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 13 of 38 basis of preponderance of evidence but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. In a criminal case the rashness and negligence against the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case or MACT claim for grant of compensation the principle involved is preponderance of probability. It would be sufficient if the surrounding circumstances and the material on record establishes the allegations of rashness and negligence made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(22) By application of the above principles, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No. HR55R6889.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(23) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Mohd. Tamanne are concerned, I have gone through the photocopy of the MLC of the deceased placed on record along with the DAR. It is evident from the same that an Unknown injured aged about 38 years was brought to RML Hospital on 07.10.2018 at 11:35 PM by Ct.
Amarjeet and on examination the injured was declared 'Brought Dead'.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 14 of 38 It is evident from the record that initially the identity of the deceased was unknown and it was only later on 11.10.2018 that Mohd. Arif the brother in law of the deceased had identified the dead body as of Mohd. Tamanne. Thereafter the postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 11.10.2018 at RML Hospital. The copy of postmortem report which forms a part of the DAR shows that the alleged history was of Road Traffic Accident on 07.10.2018 at around 10:00 PM in front of Kabir Hotel, near Park, Paharganj, Nabi Karim, Delhi. There were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. A reddish grazed abrasion of size 19 cm x 12 cm involving right face, right aspect of neck and right ear was present.
The right ear also shows a muscle deep laceration of size 2 x 0.5 cm over its lower aspect.
2. A reddish contused abrasion of size 6 cm x 3 cm was present over the right shoulder.
(24) On internal examination of Skull, fracture of base of skull involving anterior, middle and posterior cranial fossa was present associated with hematoma. Further, subdural hematoma was present at places at the base of brain. A reddish contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm was present over the left frontal lobe. Subarachnoid haemorrhage was also present at places over the cerebral hemispheres and cerebellar hemispheres and cerebellar hemispheres. The cause of death opined by the Autopsy Surgeon is craniocerebral damage and its complications consequent upon blunt external impact/ force which Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 15 of 38 could be possible in alleged circumstances. The respondents have not disputed the factum of death of Mohd. Tamanne consequent upon the injuries caused to him in the accident in question nor there is any evidence on record to the contrary. Therefore, it stands established that the deceased Mohd. Tamanne had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
(25) This being the background and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar has been made an accused in FIR No. 340/2018, PS Nabi Karim under Sections 279/304A IPC, wherein he has been arrested, I hereby hold that the deceased Mohd. Tamanne had expired on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident which took place on 07.10.2018 at 10:00 PM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar the driver of truck bearing No. HR55R6889.
(26) All the above three issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.4: If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
(27) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was doing the business of manufacturing leather bags and other bags and was earning Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per month. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 35 years and was possessing good health. In Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 16 of 38 the claim petition the petitioners have claimed a total compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lacs.
(28) In so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they have not given any legal offer nor filed Form XIV i.e. Format of Written submissions to be filed by the parties in Death Cases as provided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021. (29) I have considered the evidence on record. I may note that the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017 and laid down general principles relating to computation of compensation in death cases, which are as under:
"........18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 17 of 38 If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 18 of 38 Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/ to Rs.10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added....." .
(30) Applying the settled principles to the facts of the present case, coming first to the age of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased Mohd. Tamanne was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. In this regard, the petitioners have not placed on record any document on record. However, a photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Mohd. Tamanne has been placed on record along with the DAR which shows his date of birth as 01.01.1980. Accordingly, the deceased Mohd. Tamanne was aged 38 years at the time of accident on 07.10.2018. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased.
This being the background, I hold that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 38 years and hence, applying the criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the multiplier applicable according to the age of deceased would be Fifteen (15). (31) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that according to the petitioners the deceased Mohd. Tamanne was Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 19 of 38 doing the business of manufacturing the leather bags and other bags and was earning Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per month. According to Rahat Praveen (PW1) wife of the deceased, her husband was employed with her brother namely Mohd. Arif from whom her husband used to get the raw material and then used to prepare leather bags at home and supply the same. Here, I may note that Mohd. Arif has been examined as PW2 but in his entire examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/2 he has nowhere stated that the deceased was working with him. No document has been placed on record in the form of Income Tax Return or Bank Account Statement showing that he was earning Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per month. It is an admitted case of Rahat Parveen (PW1) that she has not filed any document which shows that her deceased husband was doing the work of manufacturing of leather bags or that he was earning Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per month. (32) I may also note that the petitioners have not placed on record the educational qualification of the deceased Mohd. Tamanne. Therefore, there being no proof or documents showing the income of the deceased, I hold that the minimum wages for unskilled worker prevailing at the time of accident on 07.10.2018 i.e. Rs.14,000/ (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) shall be considered as income of the deceased.
(33) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, I may note that the deceased Mohd. Tamanne had left behind the following Legal Heirs:
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 20 of 38
1. Rahat Parveen (Wife) aged 37 years.
2. Mohd. Sufiyan (Son) aged 6 years.
3. Mohd. Gafruddin (Father) aged 68 years.
4. Mehrunnisha (Mother) aged 65 years.
5. Anzari Khatoon (Unmarried Sister) aged 21 years.
(34) In so far as the unmarried sister of the deceased is concerned, she is residing at her native village i.e. Village & Post Office Basuki Bihari, District Madhubani, Bihar847305 along with the parents of the deceased. She is a major and there is nothing on record to show that she was dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, she cannot be considered as a dependent of the deceased.
(35) By adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) the Future Prospects at the rate of 40% shall be added and deductions in the income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses would be one fourth of his income. (36) Coming next to the Compensation under nonpecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018. After considering the Pranay Sethi's judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court pleased to award loss of consortium Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 21 of 38 of Rs.40,000/ to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/ to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection, which I quote as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 22 of 38 their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 23 of 38 (37) However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
(38) In view of the above, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, a sum of Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 24 of 38 Rs.40,000/ each towards Loss of Consortium is awarded to the wife, son and parents of the deceased.
(39) Now coming to the Computation of compensation and by applying the settled guidelines as laid down in the various judgments as herein above, the compensation is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
1. Monthly Income of deceased (A) 14,000/ per month
(as per minimum wages)
2. Add future prospect (B) 40% of 14,000 = 5,600/
3. Less 1/4th deduction towards personal (14,000 + 5,600) / 4 = and living expenses of the deceased 4,900/ (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (14,000 + 5,600) - 4,900 = [(A+B) - C = D] 14,700/
5. Annual loss of Dependency (D x 12) 14,700 x 12 = 1,76,400/ 6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency 1,76,400/ x 15 = D x 12 x E = F 26,46,000/
8. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/ (I)
11. Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000/
12. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (K) Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 25 of 38
13. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K 28,36,000/ = L) (40) I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 16.07.2019 till realization.
Apportionment:
(41) Here, I may note that though in the Claim Petition, only the wife and son of the deceased have been shown as petitioner no.1 and 2 respectively, yet it is evident from the documents on record that the deceased had also left behind his parents. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the Legal Heirs of the deceased are tabulated as under:
Sr. Name of the Relation with Percentage of Amount in No. claimant deceased award amount (Rs.) 1 Rahat Parveen Wife 40% 11,34,400/ 2 Mohd. Sufiyan Son 10% 2,83,600/ 3 Mohd. Gafruddin Father 25% 7,09,000/ 4 Mehrunnisha Mother 25% 7,09,000/ Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 26 of 38 Disbursement:
(42) The Financial Statements of the petitioner no.1 Rahat Parveen was recorded by this Tribunal on 08.12.2021 according to which her family expenses are about Rs.20,000/ to Rs.25,000/ per month. (43) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Rahat Parveen (Wife of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,34,400/ plus 50% of the interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lacs) shall be put in Hundred monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. The petitioner no.1 Rahat Parveen shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,34,400/ plus half of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 27 of 38 (44) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Mohd. Sufiyan (son of the deceased) is concerned, he is a minor aged 6 years and hence, his entire share shall be kept in an FDR till he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority 10% of the amount shall be released to him and the balance amount of 90% shall be kept in 15 monthly fixed deposits of equal amount in his name in a nationalized bank for a period of 01 month to 15 months. Besides the above said amount, the amount of FDRs on maturity shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM Card and it is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of the passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. Being the natural guardian/ mother Rahat Parveen is permitted to withdraw interest on monthly or quarterly basis as she desires till the petitioner no.2 attain the age of majority to meet her expenses. (45) In so far as Mohd. Gafruddin (Father of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,09,000/ plus 25% of the interest amount be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs) shall be put in Sixty monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 60 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 28 of 38 terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. Mohd. Gafruddin shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,09,000/ plus 25% of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (46) In so far as Mehrunnisha (Mother of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,09,000/ plus 25% of the interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs) shall be put in Sixty monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 60 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 29 of 38 with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued and the same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. Mehrunnisha shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,09,000/ plus 25% of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (47) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 30 of 38 issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
(48) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatXV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 07.10.2018
2. Name of the deceased: Mohd. Tamanne
3. Age of the deceased: 38 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.14,000/ (As per minimum wages)
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Rahat Parveen 37 years Wife
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 31 of 38
(ii) Mohd. Sufiyan 06 years Son
(iii) Mohd. Gafruddin 68 years Father
(iv) Mehrunnisha 65 years Mother COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 7 Annual Income of deceased (A) 14,000/ per month (as per minimum wages) 8 Add future prospect (B) 40% of 14,000 = 5,600/ 9 Less 1/4th deductions towards personal (14,000 + 5,600) / 4 = and living expenses of the deceased 4,900/ (C) 10 Monthly loss of dependency (14,000 + 5,600) - 4,900 = [(A+B) - C = D] 14,700/ 11 Annual loss of Dependency 14,700 x 12 = 1,76,400/ (D x 12) 12 Multiplier (E) 15 13 Total loss of dependency 1,76,400/ x 15 = DxE=F 26,46,000/ 14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 15 Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H) 16 Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000 x 4 = 1,60,000/ (I) 17 Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000/ 18 Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (K) Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 32 of 38 19 Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J = 28,36,000/ L) 20 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 6% 21 Interest amount upto the date of award 4,49,366/ (L) (2 Years, 7 Months and 21 Days) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.32,85,366/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 43 to 46 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 43 to 46 25 Mode of disbursement of the award As per paragraphs no. 43 amount to the claimant(s) to 46 26 Next Date of compliance of the award 08.04.2022 Liability:
(49) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, I may observe that the respondent no.3 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has neither admitted nor denied that the Insurance Policy nor given a specific reply to the said aspect despite opportunity and despite imposition of repeated costs by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal vide orders dated 25.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 which cost has not been paid to the petitioners till date. However, a copy of the Insurance Policy bearing the original stamp of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Karol Bagh, Delhi has been filed along with the DAR which shows that the offending vehicle bearing No. HR55R 6889 has been duly insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No. 101026/31/19/014477 valid from 06.10.2018 till Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 33 of 38 05.10.2019. Since the offending vehicle bearing No. HR55R6889 was being driven by respondent no.1 Pankaj Kumar whereas the respondents no.2 Jawahar Yadav and Manoj Kumar Yadav are the registered owners and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
(50) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(51) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.28,36,000/ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Thirty Six Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 16.07.2019 till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT01, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 34 of 38 Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/ transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(52) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the counsel for the claimant namely Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Jha Advocate, Chamber No. B59, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Mobile No. 9718182950.
(53) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
08.04.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 35 of 38 (54) A copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(55) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 07.03.2022 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 36 of 38 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 07.10.2018 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of the Report (FAR) year 2019 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the victim(s) Not Applicable being a case of the year 2019 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Driver Not Applicable being a case of the year 2019 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Owner Not Applicable being a case of the year 2019 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Accident Not Applicable being a case of the Report (IAR) year 2019 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form VIB Not Applicable being a case of the from the Victim(s) year 2019 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail Accident 16.07.2019 Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No details provided by the by the Insurance Company Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on The Designated Officer of the the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company did not file the Insurance Company? If so, whether any reply within the prescribed time action/direction warranted? and when the reply was filed it was lacking on material aspects.
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer No Legal Offer was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company. of the Insurance Company Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 37 of 38 14 Date of award 07.03.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open No such order was passed by the savings bank account(s) near their place of Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal at residence? the time of filing of DAR 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were No such order was passed by the directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal at his place of residence and produce PAN card the time of filing of DAR and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the On 08.12.2021 the petitioner no.1 passbook of their savings bank account(s) near Rahat Parveen had produced her the place of their residence alongwith the Aadhar Card, PAN Card and the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? first page of their bank passbook with necessary endorsement.
PAN Card No. of petitioner no.1 Rahat Parveen is EZQPP6943C 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. Financial Statement of the time of passing of the Award to ascertain petitioner No.1 was recorded on his/their financial condition? 08.12.2021 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 07.03.2022 Mohd. Tamanne (deceased - through LRs) Vs. Pankaj Kumar & Ors., MACT no. 512/2019 Award dated 07.03.2022 Page No. 38 of 38