Delhi District Court
Lr' Of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 1 Of 20 on 20 December, 2018
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 1 of 20
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 4993116
MACT PETITION No. : 28413
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010007622013
1.Smt. Alka W/o Late Sh. Som Dutt
( wife of deceased Som Dutt)
2. Ms. Srishti D/o Late Sh. Som Dutt
(minor daughter of deceased)
3. Ms. Kirti d/o Late Sh. Som Dutt
(minor daughter of deceased)
4. Smt. Bala Devi W/o Jile Singh
(mother of deceased).
R/o Vill. Kassar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Dinesh S/o Rishi Parkash
R/o VPO Pakasma, Panna Khatran, Rohtak, Haryana.
....... Driver /R1
2. Sh. Surender
R/o VPO Kisrainti, Rohtak, Haryana.
....... Owner /R2
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance co.
F.A.I. Building, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Delhi.
..... Insurance co/R3
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.06.2013
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 05.12.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2018
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 CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 1 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 2 of 20
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 27.04.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 01.06.2013
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 01.06.2013
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate record.
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 01.06.2013
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 01.06.2013
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 01.06.2013
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 01.06.2013
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Pardeep
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Sehrawat Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 2 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 3 of 20
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer N/A
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 20.12.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 21.03.2018
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). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 19.09.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no. 1 Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Alka savings bank a/c
IFSC Code (Clause 27) no.
4676000100036531,
petitioner no. 2 Ms.
Srishti savings bank
a/c no.
4676000100036489,
petitioner no. 3 Ms.
Kirti savings bank a/c
no.
4676000100036470
and petitioner no. 4
Smt. Bala savings
bank a/c no.
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 3 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 4 of 20
4676000100036452
with PNB, Kasar
Branch, Haryana.
IFSC : PUNB0467600
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini 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 01.06.2013 with reference to FIR No.135/13 U/s 279/337/304A IPC PS Begumpur and subsequent charge sheet u/s 279/338/304A IPC which was filed in respect of death of Sh. Som Dutt. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.06.2013 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 27.04.2013 at about 12:45 pm, Sh. Som Dutt (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') along with his real brother Om Dutt were going from Kanjhawala side towards Rohini on motorcycle no. HR13E8446 (Hero Honda Splendor) which was being driven by the deceased. When they reached in front of main Kanjhawala road, village Begumpur, Delhi, suddenly a tempo truck bearing registration no. HR46C 8257 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/R1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle of deceased. Due to said impact, the deceased along with his brother fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The deceased and his brother Om Dutt were removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi and thereafter they were shifted to Saroj hospital & Heart Institute, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi where the doctors declared Sh.
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 4 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 5 of 20
Som Dutt as dead.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide PMR No. 368/13 wherein the cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock as a result of pelvic injury due to blunt force impact, all injuries were antemortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged.
3. R1/ Dinesh who was the driver and R2/Sh. Surender owner of the offending vehicle have not filed their written statements. The record would show that they were ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.09.2017.
4. R3/ Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd filed its written statement wherein it was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with the said insurance co. vide policy no. 83944755 w.e.f 26.04.2013 to 25.04.2014 in the name of Surender/R2 i.e. covering the date of accident 27.04.2013. It was stated that the driving licence of the offending driver as well as the deceased were found to be genuine as per verification report of the IO.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 18.12.2013: (1) Whether on 27.04.2013 at about 12:45 pm, at main Kanjhawala road near LPG Gas Godown, Begumpur, Delhi vehicle bearing registration no. HR46C8257, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Dinesh/R1 hit motorcycle no. HR13E8446 of Somdutt and caused his death ?
(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
The record would show that there are two connected matters qua the present accident i.e. MACT No. 284/13 titled as LR's of Som Dutt Vs Dinesh (present file) and MACT No. LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 5 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 6 of 20 731/18 titled as Om Dutt Vs Dinesh and that MACT No.284/13 LR's of Som Dutt vs Dinesh is treated as main file for the purpose of evidence. It is an admitted fact during arguments that as the said two files are interconnected and interrelated, relating to the same accident, hence, the evidence and documents in the said two files can be read together.
6. As this file is the main file for the purpose of evidence, hence, all the witnesses of above said two files have been examined and tagged in the present file. The witnesses relevant and pertinent to the present file are PW1/ Smt. Alka (wife of deceased) and PW2/ Sh. Om Dutt (eye witness/injured).
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners and ld counsel for insurance co/R3. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners.
Petitioners have examined Sh. Om Dutt, eye witness/injured of the present case, as PW2. PW2 has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. He has proved the documents as Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3 which are his ration card, his treatment record and copy of certificate of employment issued by Govt. Sarvodya Bal Vidalaya, Pooth Kalan, Delhi.
He deposed that on 27.04.2013 at about 12:45 pm he along with his real brother Som Dutt (deceased) were going from Kanjhawala side towards Rohini on their motorcycle no. DH138446 (Hero Honda Splendor) which was being driven by deceased. He deposed that when they reached in LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 6 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 7 of 20 front of main Kanjhawala Road, Village Begumpur, Delhi, a Tempo Truck bearing no. HR46C8257 (offending vehicle) came from behind and hit the motorcycle. He deposed that due to said impact, PW2 along with deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. He deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was caught by some unknown passerby and thereafter the driver of the offending vehicle told his name as Dinesh S/o Sh. Rishi Prakash. He deposed that they were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. He deposed that due to serious condition of deceased, deceased was shifted to Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi where deceased died during treatment. He deposed that FIR No. 135/13 U/s 279/337/304 A IPC was registered at PS Begumpur, Delhi.
PW2 was cross examined only on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he inter alia deposed that the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 13E8446 was in the name of his uncle namely Sh. Ashish Kumar. He did not remember if his and his brother's helmet were seized by the police or not. He denied the suggestion that they were not wearing the helmets and that is why the same were not seized by the police. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the negligence of his brother/deceased.
PW2 was not cross examined by R1 and R2 despite opportunity given and his cross examination by R1 was nil, opportunity given. In the said circumstances, R1 shall be deemed to admit the above said testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused on the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 whereby the deceased expired due to the accident.
Nothing material has appeared in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his testimony regarding the date, time and place and the manner in which the case accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by driving it in a rash and negligent manner.
The copy of criminal case record on the record of this file would LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 7 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 8 of 20 show that the case FIR No. 135/13 u/s 279/337/304A IPC PS Begumpur was registered and that the charge sheet u/s 279/338/304A IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet u/s 279/338/304A IPC against R1 can be relied upon to show that the case accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving the offending vehicle.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide PMR No. 368/13 wherein the cause of death was opined as hemorrhagic shock as a result of pelvic injury due to blunt force impact, all injuries were antemortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged.
The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
In the said circumstances, testimony of PW2 and other record including the FIR and Charge sheet against R1, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle of deceased thereby causing his death.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW1 ( wife of the deceased) has deposed through her evidence by way
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 8 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 9 of 20
of affidavit Ex. PW/A. She has proved her election card, birth registration certificate of children of deceased, election card of mother of deceased as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4. She has also proved the education certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/10, copy of election ID card and driving licence of deceased as Ex. PW1/11 to Ex. PW1/12, copy of MLC, treatment sheets, postmortem report of deceased as Ex. PW1/13 to Ex. PW1/15, copy of employment certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/16 & Ex. PW1/17, copy of register maintained for the accounts of Mudgal Education Centre as Ex. PW1/19, copy of death certificate of deceased and original photographs of petitioners as Ex. PW1/20 to Ex. PW1/21.
The copy of matriculate certificate of deceased has been proved as Ex. PW1/5 which shows the date of birth of deceased as 14.11.1983, hence, on the date of accident (27.04.2013), deceased was aged about 29 years & 5 months. PW1 has also proved the Graduation Degree of deceased as Ex.PW1/8 which shows that deceased was a graduate.
PW1 deposed that at the time of accident her husband had done M.A. B.Ed., was a teacher on contract basis in Delhi and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month. She deposed that as he was extra ordinary in his job of teaching, hence, he was also being sent to other school for which he was being paid extra money. She deposed that her husband was also running an educational institute under the name and style of Mudgal Education Centre in village Kasar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana and was earning about Rs. 40,000/ per month from it.
During cross examination as conducted on behalf of respondent no. 3, she has admitted that her husband was working as a guest teacher at the time of accident. She denied the suggestions that she had not filed documents to show that her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month or that her husband was not running any educational institute with the name and style of Mudgal Education Centre or that her husband was not earning Rs. 40,000/ per month from said institute. She admitted that her husband was working on contract basis. She also admitted that she had not placed on LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 9 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 10 of 20 record any document to prove that the deceased was earning income of about Rs. 40,000/ per month as claimed by her in para no. 14 of her affidavit. She further admitted that she had not placed on record any document regarding permission/recognition granted by any competent authority to run the coaching centre in the name and style of Mudgal Education Centre.
The claimants have not examined any witness from any school to prove the salary certificate or monthly income of the deceased. The claimants have not proved any document to show that he was running any coaching centre and have failed to prove the monthly income of the deceased.
Claimants have proved the graduate degree and details of marks of deceased as Ex. PW1/8 & EX. PW1/9 respectively.
In view of the said discussion, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. It was also fairly admitted during final arguments by ld counsel for petitioners that in the absence of any income proof, the income of the deceased be notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate. The minimum wages of a graduate at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs. 10,218/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 10,218/ per month on the date of accident in question.
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 10 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 11 of 20
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 11 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 12 of 20
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
In the case in hand, the deceased was a self employed person and in terms of above said judgment, while determining her income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 29 years & 5 months. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 10,218/+40% of 10,218/ which comes to Rs. 10,218+ Rs.4087/(after rounding off). = Rs. 14,305/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of deceased. In the present case, the deceased was married and her wife, children and mother are dependent family members, hence, there were 4 dependents upon the deceased. Hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) in paragraph no 61 (v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 29 years and 5 months at the time of her death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. As per the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier of 17 is to be adopted when the age of the victim is between 26 years to 30 years. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 12 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 13 of 20 "17" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs. 21,88,665/ [i.e. Rs. 14,305/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X17 (multiplier) X3/4 (dependency)].
10. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/ under the head of loss of consortium is being granted to wife of deceased.
11. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
12. Petitioner/claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 21,88,665/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/ LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 13 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 14 of 20 ________________ Total Rs. 22,58,665/ ________________ [Rounded off to Rs. 22,59,000/] (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 01.06.2013 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
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.
13. Liability In the case in hand, the Iffco Tokio General Insurance co./R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 and R2, who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
14. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Iffco Tokio General Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 22,59,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 14 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 15 of 20 name of above said bank alongwith 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
15. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & 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: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ be given to petitioner namely Smt. Bala who is mother of deceased and from the same an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 4676000100036452 with PNB, Kasar Branch, Bahadurgarh, Haryana as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 36 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Further, an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ each be given to petitioners namely Ms. Srishti and Ms. Kirti who are minor daughters of deceased and same be kept in FDR in their name till they attain the age of majority and after maturity the same be released/transferred in their savings bank a/c no.4676000100036489 (in the name of Ms. Srishtii) and A/c No. 4676000100036470 (in the name of Ms. Kirti) with PNB, Kasar branch, Bahadurgarh, Haryana i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 15 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 16 of 20 mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Remaining amount be given to Smt. Alka who is widow of deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 4676000100036531 with PNB, Kasar Branch, Bahadurgarh, Haryana as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 48 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 48 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further directions:
(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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature 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 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 16 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 17 of 20 before the disbursement of the award amount.
(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.
16. Relief As discussed above, R3/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 22,59,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 01.06.2013 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the 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. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
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 & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
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 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 17 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 18 of 20 Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded wherein she stated that she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that she would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
17. 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. Insurance co. is directed to obtain the copy of PAN Card of petitioner from the court record. Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2018.12.20 16:56:41 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 20th December 2018 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 18 of20
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 19 of 20
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 27.04.13
2. Name of deceased: Som Dutt
3. Age of the deceased: 29 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the deceased: 14,305/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Bala 62 years mother
(ii) Smt. Alka 29 years Wife
(iii) Ms. Srishti 8 years Daughter
(iv) Ms. Kirti 6 years daughter
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 10,218/ .
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40%= Rs. 4087/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/4th
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 10,729/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,28,748/
12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 21,88,716/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/ consortium (I) LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 19 of20 LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 20 of 20
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 22,59,000/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 11,18,202/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.33,77,202/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 31,77,202/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 22.01.2019.
award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed AMIT by AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2018.12.20 16:56:53 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
20.12.2018
LR' of Som Dutt vs Dinesh Page 20 of20