Delhi District Court
Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Kumar vs Ant Ram on 7 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.344/2018
FIR No.344/17
PS Mianwali Nagar
1. Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Lal Yadav ( Husband of deceased Sanju Devi)
2. Deepa Kumari D/o Sh. Ajay Kumar (daughter of deceased Sanju Devi)
3. Ram Samujh Kumar (son of deceased Sanju Devi)
4. Preeti Kumari ( daughter of deceased Sanju Devi)
All R/o 493, Gali No.34,
Onkar Nagar C, Trinagar,
Delhi
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Ant Ram
S/o Sh. Jaipal
R/o VPO Gahri, Nawabad,
PS Bhorakalan, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar,
U.P.
(Driver)
2. Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahinder
R/o B6/2, New Ram Parkash Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
(Owner)
3. National Insurance Co.Ltd.
(Insurer) .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.05.2018
Date of conclusion of arguments : 03.09.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 07.09.2020
AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim of the petitioners under the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Sanju Devi in a road vehicular accident that took place on 29.07.2017. An FIR No.0344/17 under Sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar against respondent No.1/Ant Ram, driver of Truck bearing registration No.HR55W1260 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and chargesheet.
3. Separate DAR was also filed for injured Ajay ( complainant herein) bearing number 345/2018 which was disposed of as settled vide order dated 02.11.2018.
4. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 29.07.2017 deceased Sanju Devi was travelling with her husband Ajay Kumar Yadav on motorcycle bearing registration number DL8SAZ2407 driven by Ajay Kumar. At about 9.30 pm, when they reached traffic signal of Rohtak Road, Camp No.4, Jwala Puri, opposite DTC Bus Depot, Delhi, offending truck came from Nangloi side at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and struck against the said motorcycle from behind. Consequently, deceased and her husband fell on the road and deceased Sanju Devi was crushed under the wheel of offending truck. Her husband Ajay Kumar also sustained injuries in the said accident. Thereafter, both the victims were removed to SGM Hospital.
5. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1/Ant Ram which was owned by respondent No.2/Ravinder and insured with respondent No.3/National Insurance Company Ltd.
6. In the Written Statements filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and i.e. driver and owner, involvement of offending truck was denied. It was averred that the accident was caused by one dumper of red colour which was going ahead of the alleged offending vehicle.
7. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, it was admitted that offending vehicle i.e. Truck (HGV) bearing registration number HR55W1260 was insured with respondent no.3/insurance company vide policy number 360700311610001208 valid from 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal vide order dated 05.09.2018:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner Ajay suffered injuries and smt. Sanju Devi suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 29.7.2017 at about 09.30 pm at Main Rohtak Road Red Light Camp No.4, Jawala Puri opposite DTC Depot Nangloi, Delhi involving a truck bearing registration number HR55W 1260 driven by respondent no.1 Ant Ram in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2 Ravinder Kumar and insured with respondent no.3 national Insurance Company Limited? (OPP)
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties through video conferencing and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
10. My findings on various issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the petitioner Ajay suffered injuries and smt. Sanju Devi suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 29.7.2017 at about 09.30 pm at Main Rohtak Road Red Light Camp No.4, Jawala Puri opposite DTC Depot Nangloi, Delhi involving a truck bearing registration number HR55W 1260 driven by respondent no.1 Ant Ram in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2 Ravinder Kumar and insured with respondent no.3 national Insurance Company Limited? (OPP)
11. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that respondent No.1 was negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
12. To substantiate the claim of petitioners that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to negligent driving of respondent No.1, petitioner No.1/Ajay Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW1 claiming himself to be an eye witness to the accident.
13. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), PW1/Ajay Kumar explained the mode and manner of the accident as described in para 3 of this award.
14. In his crossexamination by insurance company/respondent No.3, PW1/Ajay Kumar Yadav categorically testified that the accident had taken place at about 09:30 pm when he was crossing the green signal and was in the middle of the road. He also testified that he was hit by the offending truck from behind, due to which, he had fallen on the road and public persons had lifted him. He further testified that the driver of the offending truck had stopped the truck at a distance after the accident. Nothing could be elicited from the crossexamination of PW1 which could discard his version regarding the accident.
15. The testimony of PW1/Ajay Kumar is otherwise also found to be reliable and trustworthy as he was also one of the victims of the accident and was the best witness to depose regarding the accident in question. More so, when he was not crossexamined by respondent No.1/driver qua mode and manner of the accident. Also, his claim for compensation was settled by the insurance company.
16. Further, perusal of FIR reflects that both the vehicles i.e. motorcycle of the injured and offending truck were seized from the spot in accidental condition.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of respondent No.1/Ant Ram. Issue No.1, thus, is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
18. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
19. In SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121 , which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This 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 wellsettled steps:
Step1 (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. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step3 (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."
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
20. It was claimed PW1/Ajay Kumar, husband of the deceased, that his deceased wife Sanju Devi was aged 3435 years at the time of accident. To support his version, PW1/Ajay Kumar placed on record Voter I/Card of deceased (Mark C), as per which, deceased was aged 30 years as on 01.01.2013. Since, the accident took place on 29.07.2017, deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident.
Selection of multiplier
21. As the age of the deceased was 34 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), multiplier applicable according to the age of the deceased would be 16 (sixteen).
Income of the deceased
22. It was claimed by PW1/Ajay Kumar that his deceased wife was 8 th class passed and she was earning Rs.15,000/ per month by imparting tuitions. However, he failed to place on record any document in respect of educational qualification and earning of the deceased. In the absence of any evidence qua income and qualification, deceased Sanju Devi is considered as Unskilled Worker as per Minimum Wage Rate prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK VS. CHIRAYA HEALTH & MEDICARE PVT.LTD. reported as 2019 ACJ 2409 has held that "It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the contribution made by a nonworking spouse to the welfare of the family has an economic equivalent." It was also held as under: "52. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC), a three Judge Bench of this court computed damages to be paid to dependants of deceased persons as well as burn victims in the aftermath of a fire at the factory premises. The court took into consideration the multifarious services rended to the home by a homemaker and held the estimate arrived at Rs.12,000 per annum to be grossly low. It was enhanced to Rs.36,000 per annum for the age group of 34 to 59 years.
53. In Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 3 SCC 663, Justice S.B. Sinha held thus:
"(172) Loss of wife to a husband may always be truly compensated by way of mandatory compensation. How one would do it has been baffling the court for a long time. For compensating a husband for loss of his wife, therefore, the courts consider the loss of income to the family. It may not be difficult to do when she had been earning. Even otherwise a wife's contribution to the family in terms of money can always be worked out.
Every housewife makes a contribution to her family. It is capable of being measured in monetary terms although emotional aspect of it cannot be. It depends upon her educational qualification, her own upbringing, status, husband's income, etc."
Thus, in computing compensation payable on the death of a homemaker spouse who is not employed, the court must bear in mind that the contribution is significant and capable of being measured in monetary terms.
54. In assessing the amount of compensation, we have been guided by the principle which has been laid down by the Constitution Bench in Lata Wadhwa, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC) and in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), with suitable modifications in a case involving medical negligence."
24. In view of aforementioned judgment, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.13,584/ per month as on the date of accident. Number of Dependents
25. PW1/Ajay Kumar testified that his deceased wife left behind four legal heirs including him and three minor children. It was also claimed that deceased was contributing her income towards welfare of her family. Admittedly, petitioner No.1/Ajay Kumar was doing a private job at the time of accident, hence, he cannot be held to be dependent upon the deceased. So far as three children including two daughters and one son, who were very young and minor at the time of accident, hence, for the purpose of ascertaining dependency, they all three are considered as dependents upon the deceased as on the date of accident.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
26. Applying the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), deduction in the income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd of her income.
Addition in the income towards future prospects
27. In view of the ratio of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), an addition of 40% of Rs.13,584/ (Rs.5,433.60 per month)) is made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased after making an addition of future prospects would be Rs.19,017.60 per month. Loss of financial dependency
28. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be:
Rs.13,584 + Rs.5,433.60 (40% of Rs.13,584) = Rs.19,017.60 Rs.19,017.60 x 1/3rd = Rs.6,339.20 Rs.19,017.60 - Rs.6,339.20 = Rs.12,678.40 Rs.12,678.40 x 12 = Rs.1,52,140.80 Rs.1,52,140.80 x 16 (multiplier) = Rs.24,34,252.80 Accordingly, loss of total financial dependency is assessed as Rs.24,34,252.80 (rounded off Rs.24,35,000/) (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
29. In the judgment of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively.
30. The ratio of judgment of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA) has been followed since then. The same was also followed in a recent judgment titled as SMT. SANGITA ARYA & ORS. VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. passed by Hon'ble Bench of Justice R.Banumathi, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Aniruddha Bose on 16th June 2020 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.2612 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO.28724 OF 2018) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in consonance with the judgement of Pranay Sethi granted Rs 15,000 each for Loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs 40,000 towards loss of consortium for the entire family comprising of 5 dependents.
31. The said ratio has been further reiterated and accentuated in the judgment titled as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS. decided on 30th June 2020 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2705 OF 2020 AND 2706 OF 2020. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as follows:
"..........The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. c) Funeral Expenses - Rs.15,000/ to be awarded. The aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%."
32. Accordingly, in view of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA) and other judgments cited above, petitioners are entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards Funeral Expenses;Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards Loss of Estate and Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) towards Loss of Consortium.
33. The total compensation is, thus, computed as under:
SN Heads Amount(Rs.)
1. Loss of Financial Dependency 24,35,000
2. Funeral Expenses 15,000
3. Loss of Estate 15,000
4. Loss of Consortium 40,000
Total 25,05,000
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.25,05,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs and Five Thousand).
LIABILITY
34. Since it is proved that respondent No.1/Ant Ram was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, hence, he is liable to pay compensation as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.2/Ravinder is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being the owner of the offending vehicle.
35. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company as on the date of accident i.e. 29.07.2017. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under statutory liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. RELIEF
36. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.25,05,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs and Five Thousand) as compensation to the petitioners . Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 15.05.2018 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
37. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the petitioners along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs. Apportionment
38. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name of Petitioners Relation with deceased Share in the award amount 1 Ajay Kumar Husband 40% 2 Deepa Kumari Daughter 20% 3 Ram Samujh Kumar Son 20% 4 Preeti Kumar Daughter 20% Mode of payment and disbursement
39. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/ Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
40. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT SBI Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
41. In accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mr.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager/SBI, has been appointed as Nodal Officer in accordance with the abovesaid order having phone No.02222741336/9414048606 and email id:
[email protected]. In case of any assistance or noncompliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by email to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the email.
42. Out of total award amount of Rs.25,05,000/, a sum of Rs.2,05,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs and Five Thousand), be released to the petitioners in proportion to their shares mentioned above, immediately in their savings bank accounts in nationalised bank(s).
43. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.23,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) as per share of money as mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003 as per details mentioned herein:
"(i) Rs.9,20,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand) be kept in 92 (ninety two) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.1/Ajay Kumar (husband) for the period of one month to 92 months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(ii) Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand) be kept in 46 (forty six) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.2/Deepa Kumari (daughter) for the period of one month to 46 months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(iii) Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand) be kept in one FDR in the name of minor petitioner No.3/Ram Samujh Kumar (son) with cumulative interest till the period of his attaining the age of majority;
(iv) Rs.4,60,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand) be kept in one FDR in the name of minor petitioner No.4/Preeti Kumar (daughter) with cumulative interest till the period of her attaining the age of majority.
However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
44. Petitioner are directed to submit Form 15G (Form 15H in case of Senior Citizen) to the insurance company in case she is eligible for exemption of deduction of TDS.
45. The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank 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 the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze the debit card(s) of the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g)The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
46. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
47. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
48. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 04.11.2020.
49. Form IVA and Form V in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) are annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
Digitally signed and announced MALHOTRA Date: 2020.09.07
on 7th September, 2020 14:37:01 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 29.07.2017
2. Name of the deceased Sanju Devi
3. Age of the deceased 34 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Unskilled Worker
5. Income of the deceased Rs.13,584/ per month
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
SN Name Age/DOB Relation
1 Ajay Kumar 01.04.1980 Husband
2 Deepa Kumari 1998 Daughter
3 Ram Samujh Kumar 2002 Son
4 Preeti Kumar 2005 Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal (Rs.)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 13,584
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 5,433.60
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) 6,339.20
10. Monthly loss of dependency 12,678.40
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) 1,52,140.80
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) 24,34,252.80 (rounded off to
Rs.24,35,000/)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 15,000
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.25,05,000/
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.5,23,167.53
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.30,28,167.53
23. Award amount released Rs.2,05,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.23,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the FDRs
claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 04.11.2020
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
(Hemani Malhotra)
2020.09.07
14:37:09 +0530
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 29.07.2017 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 15.05.2018
2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company 15.05.2018 (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 15.05.2018 Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company.
15.05.2018 (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) (Clause 15.05.2018
11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 15.05.2018 Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) Sh. S.C. Sharma, Adv. 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the Yes DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the 05.09.2018 Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 07.09.2020 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of Yes the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of Yes residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card 15.05.2018 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). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the 29.01.2020 place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? (Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). 493, Gali No.34, Onkar Nagar, (Clause 27) Trinagar, Delhi110035 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) (i) Ajay Kumar and the address of the bank with the IFSC Code. A/c No: 39007661692 (Clause 27)
(ii) Deepa Kumari A/c No: 39054476909
(iii) Ram Samujh Kumar A/c No: 39054461507
(iv) Preeti Kumari A/c No: 39054481013 State Bank of India Tis Hazari Court Branch IFSC: SBIN0000726 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their Yes financial condition? (Clause 27) Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI (Hemani Malhotra) MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, Date: 2020.09.07 14:37:18 +0530 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi