Delhi District Court
Smt. Megha Sahni (Wife Of Deceased) vs 'S' (CclDriver) on 16 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 761/2018
CNR No. DLCT01012492018
1. Smt. Megha Sahni (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Ravi Khanna
2. Baby Aavya Khanna (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Ravi Khanna
Both R/o H. No. 2984, 3rd Floor,
Gali No. 11, Ranjit Nagar,
Patel Nagar Delhi.
.......Petitioners
Versus
1. 'S' (CCLDriver)
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma,
R/o H. No. 3013/4C, IIIrd Floor,
Gali No.17, Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi.
2. Karan Sharma (Owner)
S/o Sh. Surinder Mohan Sharma,
R/o3013/4C, Street No.17,
Near Nijhara Hospital, Ranjeet Nagar,
Central Delhi, Delhi110008.
3. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance (Insurance)
Office At: Fourth Floor,
Parsavnath Capital Tower,
Bhai Veer Singh Marg,
New Delhi110001.
......Respondents
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018
Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.1 of 39
Date of filing of Claim Petition: 19.09.2018
Date of filing of DAR: 18.12.2018
Arguments heard on: 22.03.2022
Date of Award: 16.04.2022
A W A R D:
(1) The present Claim Petition has been preferred under Section
166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) in respect of the death of
deceased Sh. Ravi Khanna who had sustained grievous injuries in a
motor vehicular accident which took place on 28.06.2018 at around
9:23 PM in front of State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar Branch,
Delhi. Later on 18.12.2018 a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also
filed by the Investigating Agency in respect of the same accident.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the claim petition are that on 28.06.2018 the deceased Ravi Khanna alongwith his friend Naveen Kumar were going on foot from South Patel Nagar to Ranjit Nagar and at about 9:15 PM, when they reached in front of State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar Branch, Delhi, the offending vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Grey Coloured bearing registration No. DL4SCT1435 which was being driven by its driver respondent no.1 namely 'S' (name of the respondent no.1 is withheld being a minor) in a very high speed, rash Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.2 of 39 and negligent manner, came and hit Ravi Khanna. Due to the forceful impact Sh. Ravi Khanna fell down on the road and received grievous injuries on which Naveen Kumar made a call at number 100 and with the help of the police officials shifted the deceased to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Delhi from where the deceased was referred to RML Hospital, Delhi. From RML Hospital, the deceased was referred to Safdarjung Hospital where MLC bearing No. 171486/18 dated 29.06.2018 was prepared and on 02.07.2018 the deceased expired during treatment at Safdarjung Hospital due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. According to the petitioners, at the time of accident, the deceased Sh. Ravi Khanna possessed a very good health and physique and was running a Mobile Shop at Main Bazar, Shadipur, Delhi and was earning approximately Rs.18,000/ per month.
(3) The respondent no.1 'S' (driver of the offending vehicle) and respondent no.2 Karan Sharma (owner of the offending vehicle) have filed their separate written statements wherein it is pleaded that the respondent no.1 'S' was not driving the offending vehicle i.e. scooty nor any accident took place with the offending vehicle. It is also pleaded that the victim was not hit by the alleged scooty from back side while he was going from Shadipur towards Patel Nagar Metro Station through service road. It is further pleaded that the police has falsely implicated the respondent no.1 in the present case and the police forcibly got a reply on the notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act which was not Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.3 of 39 voluntarily written by the respondent no.2 Karan Sharma. (4) A detailed written statement/ reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. wherein it is pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any Driving License to drive the vehicle as the respondent no.1 'S' was juvenile at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company has conceded that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL4SCT1435 was insured with the respondent no.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy No. 3005/143022366/00/000 valid from 21.01.2018 to 20.01.2019 in the name of Karan Sharma i.e. respondent no.2. It is further pleaded that the driver/ owner of the offending vehicle has completely failed to provide his driving license valid on the date of accident. It is pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without having license hence, present matter is a 'No Driving License Case'. It is further pleaded that the driving the vehicle without having driving license is statutory defense for Insurance Company under Section 149 (2) (ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and to permit a person who does not have driving license by owner or personincharge of a vehicle is also punishable offence under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act. It is further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of accident which is not only a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but also a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is pleaded that if at any stage Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.4 of 39 during the proceeding, it is observed that both or either of respondents fails to contest the claim then in that case in terms of the provisions contained in Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988, the respondent no.3 Insurance Company in their capacity as insurer be allowed to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to these persons and against whom the claim has been filed. The respondent no.3 has relied upon all the defenses provided under Section 147/149/157 & 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 25.01.2019, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court/ Tribunal had settled the following issues:
i. Whether the deceased Ravi Khanna died of injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.06.2018 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Ranjit Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL4S CT1435 by respondent no.1?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove their case, the petitioner no.1 Megha Sahni (wife of the deceased) has examined herself as PW1. She has also Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.5 of 39 examined the eye witness Sh. Naveen Kumar as PW2 and the IO of the case namely SI Vijay Karan (Retd.) as PW3. The respondent no.3 Insurance Company has examined Sh. Gautam Bhatnagar (Manager Legal) as R3W1. In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned they have not examined any witness despite repeated opportunities and their evidence was closed by this Court/ Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2021.
(7) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of all the witnesses are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Petitioners Witnesses:
1. Smt. Megha PW1 Smt. Megha Sahni is the wife of the deceased Ravi
Sahni (PW1) Khanna in the present case who in her examinationin
chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what she has been stated earlier in the claim petition. She has placed her reliance on the following documents.:
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ravi Khanna which is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Death Certificate of deceased Ravi Khanna which is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of herself (Megha Sahni) which is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of date of birth certificate of her daughter namely Baby Aavya Khanna which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Complete set of DAR which is Ex.PW1/5.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents the witness has deposed as under:
That she was not present at the spot at the time of the accident, thus she cannot tell the manner in which accident had taken place.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.6 of 39 That the witness has denied the suggestion that no accident had been caused by the offending vehicle.
That her husband was running a shop for repair of mobile phone and also used to sale and purchase the mobile phones.
That she has no documentary evidence to show that her husband was running the shop.
That she has no document to show that her husband was earning Rs.15,000/ per month from the said shop.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning Rs.15,000/ per month from the said shop.
That she has not filed any document in support of the averments in para 5 of her affidavit.
That the witness has also denied the suggestion that she has not spent any such amount.
2. Sh. Naveen PW2 Sh. Naveen Kumar is an eye witness to the Kumar (PW2) accident who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he used to work at Hotel Ramhan, Near Patel Nagar, Metro Station.
2. That on 28.06.2018 he was going to his home through service road near SBI Patel Nagar, Delhi and met his friend Ravi Khanna after which they started walking towards their home at Patel Nagar.
3. That they were moving on foot, suddenly a scooty bearing no. 1435, make Activa came from their backside in a very rash manner and hit his friend Ravi Khanna from behind.
4. That due to the impact his friend Ravi Khanna fell down and started bleeding from his head.
5. That he caught the driver of the scooty as he was trying to flee away from the spot.
6. That he asked the driver of scooty to take the injured to the hospital.
7. That he alongwith the said driver of the scooty namely 'S' took his injured friend Ravi Khanna to Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.7 of 39 Patel Hospital (Ballabh Bhai Patel Hospital) on the said scooty.
8. That the injured was given first aid by the hospital and thereafter the injured was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital as the bleeding was not stopped.
9. That the injured was taken to G.B. Pant Hospital in an ambulance.
10. That after giving treatment to injured in G.B. Pant Hospital, the injured was further referred to AIIMS.
11. That after reaching Patel Hospital, he had made a call to 100 number from his mobile phone bearing no. 8851591405.
12. That in the AIIMS, the injured was admitted and given treatment, however, he had left AIIMS in the morning on the next day and had got his statement recorded in the police station Ranjit Nagar on the said day.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, the witness has deposed as under: That his statement was not recorded on 28.06.2018.
That he himself remained in the Patel Hospital for about two hours and thereafter, he went to G.B. Pant Hospital.
That he did not go to his house on the night of 28.06.2019.
That his statement was recorded on 29.06.2018 in the police station.
That he was called by the police at the Police Station Ranjit Nagar and he reached the police station at about 2:002:30 PM.
That after going through the statement dated 29.06.2018 which is Ex.PW2/RX1 wherein it is mentioned as "...Ravi Khanna ko Safdarjung Hospital mein leja kar bharti karadiya aur raat jyada hone ke karan apne ghar akar so gaya.." the witness states that he did not make this statement marked from point A to A1.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.8 of 39 That the witness has voluntarily stated that he went to his house at about 5:00 AM on the next day morning.
That he did not state in his statement Ex.PW2/RX1 that he was called in the police station.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that he has given a false statement on the asking of wife of Ravi Khanna.
That in the MLC Ex.PW2/RX2 his name has not been mentioned as "brought by" but he had stated in his statement that he accompanied the injured to Patel Hospital. The witness has voluntarily explained that he had called the wife of the injured who came to the hospital.
That there is no treatment paper on record to show that the injured was hospitalized in G.B. Pant Hospital and AIIMS.
That the witness has denied the suggestion that the present accident was took place due to some other vehicle and 'S' who was at that time a passerby, just helped the injured to be taken to the hospital.
That he never visited the spot with police official on any date any time except the date of accident and has voluntarily explained that he used to go through the spot of accident as he is living/ working there.
That after going through the site plan Ex.PW2/RX3, the witness stated that the said site plan was not prepared in his presence. That the witness has denied the suggestion that his signatures was obtained on blank papers and the same was converted into the site plan and has voluntarily explained that while signing he did not go through the same.
3. Retired SI Vijay PW3 Retired SI Vijay Karan is the Investigating Officer Karan (PW3) of the present case who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspect:
1. That on 03.07.2018, investigation of the present case was handed over to him.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.9 of 39
2. That on 04.07.2018, he got conducted postmortem examination of the deceased Ravi Khanna at Safdarjung Hospital.
3. That he had also verified the documents related to the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL 4S CT 1435.
4. That he also got verified the documents i.e. Aadhar Card relating to the deceased and his LR's.
5. That he had also got the offending vehicle released after verifying the documents.
6. That he also prepared the challan and submitted the same before the Ld. MM concerned.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: ➢ That he did not enquire from any of the person who were present at the time of accident on 28.06.2018.
➢ That the witness has denied the suggestion that he prepared the challan only to falsely implicate the respondent 'S'.
➢ That the witness also denied the suggestion that the accident was not caused by 'S' as alleged by Naveen Kumar PW2.
➢ That he did not do anything about investigation except filing of challan.
Respondent's Witness:
4. Sh. Gautam R3W1 Sh. Gautam Bhatnagar, Manager Legal, ICICI Bhatnagar Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. who in his (R3W1) examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in their written statement. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents:
1. Copy of the Insurance Policy filed alongwith the DAR which is Ex.R3W1/1.
2. Copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 25.01.2019 sent to the respondent no.1 and 2 which is Ex.R3W1/2 and its speed post receipts which are Ex.R3W1/3 & R3W1/4.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.10 of 39 In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, the witness has denied the suggestion that the copy of the notice Ex.R3W1/2 was not served upon the respondent no.1 and 2. In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they have not examined any witness despite repeated opportunities.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. 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 the deceased Ravi Khanna died of injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 28.06.2018 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Ranjit Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL4SCT1435 by respondent no.1?
(9) The case of the petitioners is that on 28.06.2018 the deceased Ravi Khanna alongwith his friend Naveen Kumar were going on foot from South Patel Nagar to Ranjit Nagar and at about 9:15 PM, when they reached in front of State Bank of India, South Patel Nagar Branch, Delhi, the offending vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Grey Coloured bearing registration No. DL4SCT1435 which was being driven by its driver respondent no.1 namely 'S' in a very high speed, rash and Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.11 of 39 negligent manner, came and hit Ravi Khanna. Due to the forceful impact Sh. Ravi Khanna fell down on the road and received grievous injuries on which Naveen Kumar made a call at number 100. The injured was initially shifted to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Delhi from where the deceased was referred to RML Hospital, Delhi and from RML Hospital, the deceased was referred to Safdarjung Hospital where MLC bearing No. 171486/18 dated 29.06.2018 was prepared and on 02.07.2018 the deceased expired during treatment at Safdarjung Hospital due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. (10) The respondents no.1 and 2 have denied that any accident had taken place with the alleged offending vehicle i.e. DL4SCT1435. (11) 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. My observations and findings are as under:
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(12) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 'S' (CCL) as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435, I may note that the respondent no.1 'S' in his written statement has stated that he was not driving the scooter nor any accident took place with the said scooter. The perusal of the copy of charge sheet filed along with the DAR shows that the present case was registered on the basis of statement of Naveen Kumar who was present Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.12 of 39 with the deceased at the time of accident. In his first statement given to the police on 29.06.2018, Naveen Kumar had not only specifically mentioned the number of offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL 4SCT1435 but also mentioned the name of the respondent no.1 'S' as the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness Naveen Kumar (PW2) has in his testimony before this Court/ Tribunal and also in his first statement, specifically stated that after the accident he caught hold of the respondent no.1 'S' who was trying to flee away from the spot.
This fact finds due corroboration from the PCR form which confirms that the call was made by Naveen Kumar (PW2) who had specifically informed the police that the boy driving the scooty No. DL4SCT1435 had hit his friend from behind. He has duly identified the respondent no.1 as the driver of the offending scooty whom he had caught at the spot.
(13) There is nothing on record to show that the eye witness Naveen Kumar or the petitioners were known to the respondent no.1 'S' prior to the accident in question or that there was any history of animosity between them nor there is any allegation of the same. There is no reason for the eye witness Naveen Kumar to falsely implicate the respondent no.1 'S' in the present case. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 shows that there was a scratch on left side of brake lever. The respondents no.1 and 2 have not been able to explain as to how there was a fresh damage on the scooty. The respondent no.1 'S' has also been chargesheeted in the Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.13 of 39 criminal case bearing FIR No.183/2018, U/s. 279/304A IPC and Sections 4/181, 134A/187 of MV Act, PS Ranjit Nagar which Final Report was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board the respondent no.1 being a minor at the time of accident. This being the background, I hereby hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 'S' as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 stands established.
Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1:
(14) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 'S'. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 who had hit the deceased Ravi Khanna from behind. On the other hand the case of the respondent no.1 'S' is that no accident took place with the scooty in question.
(15) 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 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 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.14 of 39 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.
(16) In the present case the petitioner no.1 Megha Sahni has examined herself as PW1 and has also examined Sh. Naveen Kumar (PW2) and the IO of the case namely SI Vijay Karan (Retd.) as PW3. In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned they have not examined any witness to rebut the evidence led by the petitioners. (17) The present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Naveen Kumar who is a friend of the deceased and an eye witness to the accident. This Naveen Kumar has been examined by the petitioners before this Court/ Tribunal as PW2 and in his testimony before this Court, he has specifically deposed that on 28.06.2018 he was going to his home through service road near SBI Patel Nagar, Delhi where he met his friend Ravi Khanna after which they started walking towards their home at Patel Nagar and while they were moving on foot, suddenly a scooty bearing no. 1435, make Activa came from their backside in a very rash manner and hit his friend Ravi Khanna from behind as a result of which Ravi Khanna fell Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.15 of 39 down and started bleeding from his head.
(18) In his crossexamination Naveen Kumar (PW2) has admitted that in the MLC Ex.PW2/RX2 his name has not been mentioned as "Brought By" to which he has explained that he had called the wife of the deceased who came to the hospital. Here, I may also note the copy of PCR Form has been attached alongwith the DAR which shows that it was Naveen Kumar who made a call at 100 number. The PCR Form reads that "...Caller ne bataya ki Ravi Kr. Naam ke aadmi jisko chote lagi hain use Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar me lekar aaya hu.... Ravi naam ke ladke ko Naveen naam ka ladka jo uska saathi hai le kar aaya hai, jo paidal tha, jiske ek ladke ne scooty par tha ne peeche se accident kar diya tha. Scooty No. DL4SCT1435 ne hit kiya tha jo injured tha jise uska dost yaha le kar aaya tha jise yahan ke doctors ne RML Hospital me refer kar diya hai....". (19) The above PCR Form confirms the presence of Naveen Kumar (PW2) at the spot along with the deceased Ravi Khanna and also confirms that it was Naveen Kumar (PW2) who took Ravi Khanna to hospital. It also confirms that the boy who was driving the Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 had hit the injured Ravi Kumar from behind as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. (20) The testimony of Naveen Kumar (PW2) also finds corroboration from the Site Plan Ex.PW2/RX3 which shows that the accident had taken place at Service Road in front of SBI Branch, South Patel Nagar, Delhi and the spot of accident i.e. 'A' is on the extreme left Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.16 of 39 side of the road. It is not a case where the accident had taken place on the main road or the pedestrian was walking in the middle of the road (no allegations of Contributory Negligence). Rather, the testimony of eye witness Naveen Kumar (PW2) coupled with the circumstantial evidence on record in the form of PCR Form and site plan, shows that the deceased Ravi Khanna and his friend Naveen Kumar (PW2) were walking on the extreme left side of the road when the scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 hit Ravi Kumar from behind. Even otherwise, it has come on record that the respondent no.1 'S' was a minor at the time of accident and was not having any Driving License and hence, there is a presumption of his being unaware of the driving rules. (21) By application of the principles of Preponderance of Probabilities, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 'S' the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL 4SCT1435.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(22) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Ravi Khanna 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 the injured Ravi Khanna was brought to Safdurjung Hospital on 29.06.2018 by his wife Megha. As per the history mentioned in the MLC, the patient was brought to ER1 referred from SVBPH (Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital) with alleged history Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.17 of 39 of Road Traffic Accident on 28.06.2018 at 9:23 PM at South Patel Nagar. As per the endorsement, LOC (Loss of Conscious) was positive;
right ear bleed positive; vomiting positive and the patient was known smoker/ alcoholic. As per the Death Summary prepared at Safdurjung Hospital, the patient could not be revived and was declared dead on 02.07.2018 at 7:00 AM. The copy of Postmortem Report of the deceased reveals that the Autopsy surgeon had opined the cause of death due to craniocerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head; all injuries are antemortem in nature and possible the manner as alleged. The respondents have not disputed the factum of death of Ravi Khanna 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 Ravi Khanna had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
(23) This being the background and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 'S' has been made an accused in FIR No. 275/2018, PS Ranjit Nagar under Sections 279/304A IPC and the Final Report has been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board the respondent no.1 being a minor, I hereby hold that the deceased Ravi Khanna had expired on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident which took place on 28.06.2018 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranjit Nagar on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 'S' the driver of scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.18 of 39 (24) The issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(25) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased Ravi Khanna was doing the business of selling and repairing of mobile phones at Patel Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was possessing good health. In the claim petition the petitioners have claimed a total compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lacs.
(26) In so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they have not given any legal offer since there is a breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the respondent no.1 'S'/ Driver being a minor at the time of accident.
(27) 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:
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.19 of 39
(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.
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 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.20 of 39 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.
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....." .
(28) 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 Ravi Khanna was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. In this regard, the petitioner no.1 Smt. Megha Sahni has placed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased Ravi Khanna which shows his year of birth as 1979. Accordingly, the deceased Ravi Khanna was aged 39 years at the time of accident on 28.06.2018. There Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.21 of 39 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 39 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).
(29) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that according to the petitioners the deceased Ravi Khanna was doing the business of selling and repairing of mobile phones and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. In this regard, I may note that the petitioner no.1 Smt. Megha Sahni (PW1) has specifically admitted in her cross examination that she has no documentary evidence to show that her husband was running a shop or that he was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. The petitioners have not placed on record any document in the form of Income Tax Return or Bank Statement etc. showing that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. Further, the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing the educational qualification of the deceased Ravi Khanna. 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 28.06.2018 i.e. Rs.13,896/ (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Eight hundred Ninety Six only) shall be considered as income of the deceased.
(30) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, I may note that the deceased Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.22 of 39 Ravi Khanna had left behind only two legal heirs i.e. his wife Smt. Megha Sahni and his daughter Baby Avya Khanna. 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 third of his income.
(31) 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 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'.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.23 of 39 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 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.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.24 of 39 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.....".
(32) 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 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.25 of 39 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...".
(33) 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 Rs.40,000/ each towards Loss of Consortium is awarded to the wife and daughter of the deceased.
(34) 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) 13,896/ per month
(as per minimum wages)
2. Add future prospect (B) 40% of 13,896 = 5,558.4
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.26 of 39
3. Less 1/3rd deduction towards personal (13,896 + 5,558.4)/ 3 = and living expenses of the deceased 6484.8 (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (13,896 + 5,558.4) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 6,484.8 = 12,969.6
5. Annual loss of Dependency (D x 12) 12969.6 x 12 = 1,55,635/
6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency 1,55,635/ x 15 =
D x 12 x E = F 23,34,525/
8. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/ (I)
11. Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000/
12. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (K)
13. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K 24,44,525/ = L) Less Rs.50,000/ already paid to the 24,44,525 - 50,000/ petitioners towards Interim Award 23,94,525/ Grand Total 23,94,525/ Round off: 23,95,000/ (35) 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 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.27 of 39 to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. from 19.09.2018 till realization except for the period 25.02.2019 till 17.02.2020 (Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 25.02.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court/ Tribunal had directed that the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest from 25.02.2019 till they conclude the evidence, which evidence was concluded on 17.02.2020) .
Apportionment:
(36) There are only two Legal Heirs of the deceased Ravi Khanna i.e. Smt. Megha Sahni (wife) and Baby Avya Khanna (daughter) and hence, both the Legal Heirs are entitled to the compensation. 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 Megha Sahni Wife 60% 14,37,000/ 2 Avya Khanna Daughter 40% 9,58,000/ Disbursement:
(37) The Financial Statement of the petitioner no.1 Smt. Megha Sahni was recorded by this Court/ Tribunal on 22.03.2022 according to which she is working as Software Engineer at Happiest Minds and is earning Rs.68,000/ per month. According to the petitioner no.1, her Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.28 of 39 family consists of herself and her minor daughter Baby Aavya Khanna and her monthly expenses are about Rs.25,000/ per month approximately.
(38) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Smt. Megha Sahni (Wife of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,37,000/ plus entire interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs) shall be put in One Hundred Thirty 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 130 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 Smt. Megha Sahni shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,37,000/ plus entire interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.29 of 39 (39) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Baby Aavya Khanna (minor daughter of the deceased) is concerned, she is a minor and hence, her entire share shall be kept in an FDR till she attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority 10% of the amount shall be released to her and the balance amount of 90% shall be kept in 15 monthly fixed deposits of equal amount in her 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 her 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 her 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 Smt. Megha Sahni is permitted to withdraw interest on monthly or quarterly basis as she desires till the petitioner no.2 attains the age of majority to meet her expenses. (40) 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.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.30 of 39
(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 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.
(41) 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:
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.31 of 39 SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 28.06.2018
2. Name of the deceased: Ravi Khanna
3. Age of the deceased: 39 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.13,896/ (As per minimum wages)
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Megha Sahni 33 years Wife
(ii) Baby Aavya Khanna 3 years Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
7 Annual Income of deceased 13,896/ per month
(A) (as per minimum wages)
8 Add future prospect (B) 40% of 13,896 = 5,558.4
9 Less 1/4th deductions towards (13,896 + 5,558.4)/ 3 =
personal and living expenses of 6484.8
the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of dependency (13,896 + 5,558.4) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 6,484.8 = 12,969.6
11 Annual loss of Dependency 12969.6 x 12 = 1,55,635/
(D x 12)
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.32 of 39 12 Multiplier (E) 15 13 Total loss of dependency 1,55,635/ x 15 = DxE=F 23,34,525/ 14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 15 Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H) 16 Compensation for loss of 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/ consortium (I) 17 Compensation for loss of Estate 15,000/ (J) 18 Compensation for funeral 15,000/ expenses (K) 19 Total Compensation 24,44,525/ (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Less Rs.50,000/ already paid to 24,44,525 - 50,000/ the petitioners towards Interim 23,94,525/ Award Grand Total 23,94,525/ Round off: 23,95,000/ 20 RATE OF INTEREST 6% AWARDED 21 Interest amount upto the date of 3,77,212/ award (L) (2 Years, 7 Months and 15 Days) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.27,72,212/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 38 & 39 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 38 & 39 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.33 of 39 25 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraphs no. 38 award amount to the & 39 claimant(s) 26 Next Date of compliance of the 20.05.2022 award Liability:
(42) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, the case of respondent no.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. is that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. 'S' was not holding a driving license at the time of accident being a minor aged about 17 years and 06 months and hence, there being a violation of the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company has no liability to indemnify the respondent no.2 Karan Sharma (owner of the offending vehicle). In this regard, the Insurance Company has examined Sh. Gautam Bhatnagar Manager Legal as R3W1 who has placed on record the Copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 25.01.2019 sent to the respondent no.1 and 2 which is Ex.R3W1/2 and its speed post receipts which are Ex.R3W1/3 & R3W1/4. (43) I have gone through the evidence on record and considered the arguments advanced before me. I may note that during investigations the respondent no.1 'S' was found to be a minor i.e. 17 years and 6 months on the date of accident and hence the Final Report was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. From the above it becomes crystal clear that the respondent no.1 'S' was not holding a driving license to Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.34 of 39 drive the offending vehicle which tantamounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Being a minor the respondent no.1 'S' was not supposed to drive the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL4SCT1435 without a valid and effective driving license. The respondent no.2 Karan Sharma being the owner of the offending vehicle, was not supposed to allow the respondent no.1 to drive the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is entitled for recovery rights qua the respondent no.2 Karan Sharma but after satisfying the award amount.
(44) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 'S' and it was registered in the name of the respondent no.2 Karan Sharma whereas the same was insured with respondent no.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. both the Owner and the Insurer shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, after satisfying the award, the Insurance Company shall have a right to recover the award amount from the respondent no.2 Karan Sharma during execution proceedings without filing a separate civil suit.
(45) Issue is accordingly disposed off. RELIEF: (46) The respondent no.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.23,95,000/ (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Ninety Five Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.35 of 39 annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. from 19.09.2018 till realization (except for the period 25.02.2019 till 17.02.2020) with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(47) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days. (48) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 ICICI Lombard 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 the interest, with a copy to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners namely Sh. Ravi Dhankar Advocate, Chamber No. G624, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi Mobile No. 9999383274.
(49) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 20.05.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/ deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.36 of 39 (50) 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.
(51) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 16.04.2022 PO, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.37 of 39 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 28.06.2018 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (FAR) 2018 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Applicable being a case of victim(s) 2018 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Not Applicable being a case of Driver 2018 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Applicable being a case of Owner 2018 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being a case of Accident Report (IAR) 2018 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form Not Applicable being a case of VIB from the Victim(s) 2018 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail 18.12.2018 Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction No warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company 25.01.2019 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.38 of 39 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No Legal Offer given by the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company 14 Date of award 16.04.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 18.12.2018 directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card 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 petitioner no.1 produced her the passbook of their savings bank PAN Card No. BXCPS4402E, account(s) near the place of their residence Aadhar Card and copy of bank alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and pass book without endorsement Aadhaar Card? on 22.03.2022.
The copy of bank passbook with endorsement produced on 16.04.2022.
18 Permanent residential address of the As per Award claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at Financial Statement of the the time of passing of the Award to petitioner no.1 was recorded on ascertain his/their financial condition? 23.03.2022.
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 16.04.2022 Megha Sahni & Anr. Vs. 'S' & Ors., MACT No. 761/2018 Award Dated 16.04.2022 Page No.39 of 39