Delhi District Court
Bacchu Singh And Ors vs Sanjay Singh And Ors on 30 March, 2024
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 1 of32
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 181/2021
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-002060-2021
1. Bacchu Singh S/o Sh. Om Prakash
2. Smt Guddu Devi W/o Sh. Bachhu Singh
Both R/o 26-C, Pitampura Village, Delhi
110034
Also at: Shafipur, Puraini Ismailpur, Aligarh,
Pureni, Uttar Pradesh-2022820
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sanjay Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Singh
R/o 94, Badanwara, Mathura City,
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281001
....... Owner/R1
2. Rajpal S/o Sh. Gangadhar Singh,
R/o Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
........Driver/R2
3. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
Having its office at:
"Natraj" 101, 201, 301,
Junction of Western Highway &
Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400069
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.04.2021
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.03.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2024
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 1 of32
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 2 of32
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 THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN
FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH &
ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 30.09.2020
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Petition was filed
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 2 of32
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 3 of32
11. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Petition was filed
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Amit Kumar
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Maihan, Ld.
Company. Counsel for the
insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on 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 Legal Offer not
the offer of the Insurance Company . filed
18. Date of the Award 30.03.2024
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 10.05.2023
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
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 3 of32
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 4 of32
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 11.10.2023
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Bachhu Singh,
with IFSC Code savings bank a/c
No.42184195428
Smt Guddo Devi,
savings bank a/c
no. 42184194796
with SBI District
Court Rohini,
near Antariksh
Apartments,
Delhi
IFSC :
SBIN0010323
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 4 of32
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 5 of32
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) was filed on 01.04.2021, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, in respect of demise of one Surjeet @ Bholu, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the court record reveals that FIR No. 219/2020, PS Charra, District: Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, was registered on 01.10.2020, for the commission of alleged offence of causing hurt, damage to a motor vehicle and death, not amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and negligent driving of a Truck bearing registration number UP-83-AT-0776, on a public road punishable under Section 279/337/338/304A/427 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, a charge sheet against respondent no.2 was filed under section 279/337/338/427/304A IPC, before concerned Ld. CJ (Senior Division) FTC Aligarh, UP.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants) are that the deceased was working as a helper in TATA ACE vehicle, bearing registration no. DL-1L-AC-1810 (herein after referred as victim's vehicle), with the driver Devender and on 30.09.2020, at about 10:15 pm, when the deceased was Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 5 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 6 of32 travelling in victim's vehicle and reached near Shafipur, their vehicle was hit by Truck bearing registration number UP-83-AT-0776 (herein after referred as offending vehicle), which was overloaded with rice. It is further alleged that the driver of the said offending vehicle/respondent no.2 (herein after referred as R2) was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, at a very high speed, without following traffic rules and while driving the offending vehicle in the said manner, R2 had hit the victim's vehicle from the right side, resulting in grievous injuries to Surjeet @ Bhola. Further, perusal of the contents of FIR reveals that the driver Devender along with one other occupant in the victim's vehicle has sustained grievous injuries, while a labour namely Virender, who was also inside victim's vehicle had sustained fatal injuries. It is further pleaded that after the accident, the deceased Surjeet @ Bhola received treatment at various hospitals but, he died on 17.10.2010, at Safdarjung Hospital. It is further stated that the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, vide PMR No. 2333/20. It is further alleged that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 1 (herein after referred as R1) and the same was insured at the time of accident with Respondent no.3 (herein after referred as R3), vide policy no. P03181119037290, valid for the period 18.11.2019 to 17.11.2020.
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 6 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 7 of32
3. R1 and R2 had filed separate reply/written statement to the claim petition, wherein they submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable against them, for want of any cause of action and they are not liable to pay any compensation, as the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident. It is further contended that R2 was having valid Driving license and all the documents of the offending vehicle i.e RC, Insurance are valid. They both denied that at the time of accident, R2 was rash or negligent.
4. In its written statement/reply, R3/insurance company admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with R3, at the relevant time. It is stated that in case it is proved that at the time of accident, R2 was not holding valid and effective driving license, then R3 would not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor Court, vide order dated 12.01.2022:-
1. Whether on 30.09.2020 at about 10.15 pm, near Village Safipur, PS Charra, District, Aligarh, UP, one Truck bearing registration no. UP-83AT-0776, which was being driven rashly and negligently by R2/Rajpal had hit the Loader/vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1LAC-1810 and caused death of Surjeet @ Bhola? OPP.
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 7 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 8 of32
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined 2 witnesses. It is noteworthy that there are 2 connected petitions, arising out of the same accident i.e MACT no. 181/21, titled as Bachhu Singh and Ors. Vs Sanjay Singh and Ors. and 182/21, titled as Devender Vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors., and for the purpose of evidence, both the files were consolidated and MACT no. 181/21, titled as Bachhu Singh and Ors. Vs Sanjay Singh and Ors., was treated as the main Case.
7. PW1 Bacchu Singh, who is the father of the deceased Surjeet @ Bholu, lead his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and in his evidence, PW1 has placed reliance on his Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1, certified copy of FIR and site plan Ex.PW1/2(colly), certified copy of mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Mark A, photocopy of R.C, Insurance policy, fitness certificate, PUC and DL of driver of victim's vehicle Ex. PW1/3 (colly), Tax Receipt of victim's vehicle Ex. PW1/4, photocopy of DL of R2 Mark B, Photocopy of RC and Insurance policy of offending vehicle Mark C (colly),Certified copy of P.M and Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 8 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 9 of32 death report of deceased Ex. PW1/5 (colly), Copy of medical documents of deceased Mark D, Copy of MLC of deceased Mark E, Original medical bills of the deceased Ex. PW1/6, Photocopy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex. PW1/7.
8. His deposition qua the alleged accident is reiteration of the averments made in the petition. He further deposed that after the accident, the deceased was first taken to Sasmit Neuro Care and treatment centre Aligarh and thereafter, to Aligarh Muslim University but, the Doctors did not prepare the MLC. He deposed that thereafter the deceased was taken to Sanjeev Hospital for further treatment but, when his condition became serious, he was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, where MLC no. 250353 was prepared on 15.10.2020 and during treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 17.10.2020 at 10.15 PM, and post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital vide PM Report No. 2333/2020.
9. He further deposed that the deceased Surjeet @ Bholu was 23 years old at the time of accident, was working as a helper in victim's vehicle and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3 and the same cross examination was adopted by Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 admitted that the deceased has no ID proof of Delhi and they are not having any document to Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 9 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 10 of32 show that the deceased was employed in Delhi and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further admitted that he has not placed on record any document in respect of education of the deceased.
10. Further, the petitioner Devender in MACT case bearing No. 182/21 was examined as PW2. Since, he was also an injured in the case accident, therefore, he was an eye witness of the alleged accident. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit twice i.e Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. In his affidavits, his deposition qua the accident is reiteration of the facts mentioned in the FIR. He deposed that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident and he has spent more than Rs. 3,00,000/- on special diet, supplements and for medical attendant. He further deposed that he was 33 years old at the time of accident and after deducting all the expenditure including EMI of vehicle, which was Rs.12,500/- and giving salary of Rs.20,000/- to the deceased Surjeet, he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. He deposed that on the relevant date, the driver of the offending vehicle, was driving the offending vehicle, which was overloaded with rice, in a rash and negligent manner, at a very high speed, without obeying rules and regulations of traffic and hit the victim's vehicle in its right side, due to which PW2 and his helper namely Surjeet got seriously injured. He deposed that his helper Surjeet succumbed to the injuries on 17.10.2020 at Safdarjung Hospital. He also deposed that the deceased Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 10 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 11 of32 was working as a helper with PW2, on his vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LAC 1810, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He deposed that he is residing at 82A, DDA Janta Flats, Pitampura, Delhi. In his evidence, he has placed reliance on his Aadhar Card Ex. PW2/1, photocopy of certified copy of FIR and site plan Ex.PW2/2(colly), photocopy of mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Mark A (Colly), photocopy of R.C., Insurance policy, fitness certificate, PUC and his DL Ex. PW2/3 (colly), photocopy of tax receipt of his vehicle for entry in the State of UP Ex. PW2/4, Photocopy of RC and Insurance policy of offending vehicle Mark-B, photocopy of discharge card, OPD card, doctor prescription Ex.PW2/5, photocopy of medical bills Ex.PW2/6.
11. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel of R3 but, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2, despite opportunity. During the course of his cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW2 admitted that he has not placed on record any document to prove his income. He denied the fact that he was not earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. He also admitted that he has not placed on record any document to prove incurrence of expenditure on special diet, supplements and medical attendant. He deposed that he did not make a call to the police and he has no document to show that he was advised six months bed rest. He further deposed that he does not know who has taken him to the hospital. He further admitted that he has Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 11 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 12 of32 not placed on record any document to show that the deceased Surjeet was his employee and he was giving him Rs.20,000/- per month. PW2 further deposed that the offending vehicle collided with his vehicle head on and he had seen the offending vehicle for about 200 meters. He further deposed that the truck/offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the truck, he has stopped his vehicle on the left side of the road. He also admitted that he is presently doing the job of driver. He denied the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to his own negligence. He further admitted that he does not have any education record. He further admitted that except the discharge summary, there is no prescription but, he voluntarily deposed that he was admitted in the hospital from 30.09.2020 to 5.10.2020.
12. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Sh. Mohit Beniwal, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Amit Kumar Maihan, Learned counsel for R3. None has appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to address final arguments, as they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.2024.
13. On appreciation of evidence as adduced by the parties in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 12 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 13 of32 ISSUE No. 1 Whether on 30.09.2020 at about 10.15 pm, near Village Safipur, PS Charra, District, Aligarh, UP, one Truck bearing registration no. UP-83AT-0776, which was being driven rashly and negligently by R2/Rajpal had hit the Loader/vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAC-1810 and caused death of Surjeet @ Bhola? OPP.
14. The onus of proving this issue on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Devender is relevant, being an eyewitness as well as one of the injured. PW2 Sh. Devender, has proved his identity by placing reliance on his Aadhar Card Ex. PW2/1. He deposed that on 30.09.2020, at about 9.15 pm, when he was going from Delhi to Ram Nagar, Bhilait, Uttar Pradesh, in his vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAC- 1810, his vehicle was hit on its right side, by the offending vehicle, which was overloaded with rice, being driven by R2 in a rash and negligent manner, at a very high speed, without obeying rules and regulations of traffic. He deposed that due to the impact of collision, PW2 and his helper namely Surjeet got seriously injured. He deposed that his helper Surjeet succumbed to the injuries on 17.10.2020, at Safdarjung Hospital. During the course of his cross-examination, by Ld. Counsel for R3, though suggestion was put to PW2, that the accident has taken place due to negligence of PW2 but, he denied the said Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 13 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 14 of32 suggestion and reiterated the fact that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R2. Rather, during his cross- examination, he specifically deposed that on seeing the offending vehicle at a distance of 200 meters, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, he has stopped his vehicle on the left side of the road and that the offending vehicle had collided with his vehicle head on. PW2 has not been cross-examined by R1 and R2, to impeach the credibility of PW2, so as to prove their defence that the alleged accident had not taken place with the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving of R2.
15. It is worthwhile to mention here that in their written statement, R1 and R2 has stated that no accident has taken place with the offending vehicle and that the accident has taken place with some other vehicle but, both R1 and R2 failed to prove the said defence, by either cross- examination of eye witness/PW2 or by producing any witness in their defence.
16. During the course of cross examination of PW1 and PW2, the respondents failed to elicit any admission from PW1 and PW2, so as to negate the factum of death of the deceased Surjeet and injuries sustained by PW2 in a road traffic accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R2.
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 14 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 15 of32
17. In the present matter, both PW1 and PW2 have placed reliance on mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Mark A. As per report of mechanical inspection, the front tyres of the offending vehicle, front rod spring, windshield, meter console (dashboard), front axle were found damaged at the time of mechanical inspection and as per mechanical inspection of victim's vehicle, the tyres on backside of vehicle was missing, battery, electric light, front rod spring/suspension, front light, cooling system and entire cabin, windshield, front bumper, dashboard, meter console were found damaged and body of victim's vehicle has completely separated from chassis frame. Thus, the said inspection reports corroborate the testimony of PW2, that there was head on collusion of victim's vehicle with the offending vehicle. Further, as PW2 has deposed that R2 had hit his vehicle, while his vehicle was parked on the left side of the road, therefore, the same duly proves that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R2.
18. Further, there is nothing on record which shows that driver of the offending vehicle/R2 has ever approached to any higher authority with respect to his false implication in the present case. The fact that the deceased suffered fatal injuries and PW2 has also suffered injuries in the case accident, is also duly corroborated with medical treatment papers of injured Ex. PW2/5, MLC Mark E and post Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 15 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 16 of32 mortem report of deceased Ex. PW1/5 (colly), as per which fatal injuries sustained by the deceased and injuries sustained by PW2 has resulted in a road traffic accident.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
19. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
20. PW1 Bachhu Singh, the father of the deceased Surjeet @ Bholu had placed reliance on medical bills to prove the expenditure incurred by him, for the treatment of the deceased Surjeet, after the accident and prior to his death and got it exhibited as Ex. PW1/6. Perusal of Court record reveals that the medical bills as filed and proved by PW1, was for an aggregate amount of Rs.1,69,670/-. Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 16 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 17 of32 Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards medical expenses , to the extent of original bills filed by them on Court record. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,69,670/-, as compensation to the petitioners under this head of medical expenses.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
21. PW1 Bacchu Singh, petitioner /father of deceased Surjeet @ Bhola examined himself by way of evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed that deceased Surjeet was 23 years old at the time of accident, was working as a helper in victim's vehicle and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3 and the same cross examination was adopted by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R-2. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 admitted that the deceased has no ID proof of Delhi and they are not having any document to show that the deceased was employed in Delhi and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further admitted that he has not placed on record any document to prove the education of the deceased.
22. Petitioners also examined PW2 to prove the salary of deceased Surjeet, who lead his evidence by way of evidence affidavits Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. PW2 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 17 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 18 of32 deposed that the deceased was working with him as a helper, on his vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAC- 1810 and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. During the course of his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that the deceased Surjeet was his employee and he was giving him Rs.20,000/- per month.
23. Thus, on appreciation of evidence of PW1 and PW2, it can be safely concluded that petitioners have failed to prove income of deceased Surjeet as Rs. 20,000/- per month.
24. The petitioner Bacchu Singh has though placed on record copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW1/7, as per which the deceased was shown as resident of Shafipur, Puraini, Ismailpur, Aligarh, UP-202280 however, at the time of accident, the deceased Surjeet was found to be present in the vehicle of PW2. As per unrebutted testimony of PW2, he is residing at Delhi and as per RC of victim's vehicle, the same was registered at Delhi, in the name of PW2. Further, PW2 deposed that the deceased Surjeet was present inside his vehicle as his helper, at the time of accident and as per Aadhar card of PW1/father of deceased PW1/1, PW1 was resident of 26-C Pitampura Village, Delhi. As such, it can be presumed that at the time of accident, the deceased was staying with his father and employed with PW2. Accordingly, the deceased is entitled to minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 18 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 19 of32 Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, which was Rs. 14,842/- per month. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.14,842/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident in question i.e. on 30.09.2020.
25. As per the case of petitioners, the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of aadhar card of the deceased Ex.PW1/7, wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.01.1997. The date of accident in the present case is 30.09.2020. Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 23 years 08 months and 29 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
26. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 19 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 20 of32 Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.2017.
27. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW1/A) that both the petitioners were totally dependent upon the deceased. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3 has failed to elicit anything on record which reflects that petitioners were gainfully employed. Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3 has even failed to put any suggestion that they are not dependent upon the deceased. Even otherwise, there is no material on record to establish as to whether the petitioners were gainfully employed or not at the time of death of his son and they were not dependent upon their son/deceased. Therefore, both legal heirs of the deceased including his mother and father are entitled to receive compensation being dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/3rd of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining 2/3rd of his income towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members.
28. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that as on date, there are two dependents i.e. mother and father of the deceased. Hence, there has to be deduction of one third as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.27,23,788.80/- (14,842 + 40% Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 20 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 21 of32 (5936.80) = 20,778.80 - 1/3rd (4947.33) = 15831.47 x 12 x 18). Hence, a sum of Rs.34,19,597.52/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
29. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
30. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that mother and father of deceased are entitled for payment of Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 21 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 22 of32 Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
31. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of petitioners.
32. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Medical Expenses Rs. 1,69,670/-
Loss of financial dependency Rs.34,19,597.52/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 88,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 37,07,267.52/-
________________
(After rounding off to Rs. 37,07,270/-) (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventy only).
33. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 22 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 23 of32 Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 01.04.2021 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 01.04.2021 till realization of the compensation amount.
34. 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.
LIABILITY
35. In the case in hand, the SBI General Insurance co./R3 has not lead any evidence and has not been able to show anything on record to prove that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was 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 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 23 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 24 of32 insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
36. 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., SBI General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 37,07,270/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with 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
37. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 11.10.2023 regarding savings Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 24 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 25 of32 bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and 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:-
38. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, an amount of Rs.18,53,635/- each be given to petitioner no.1, namely Bachchu Singh and petitioner no.2 Smt Guddi Devi, out of the said amount an amount of Rs.2,53,635/- each be released to them in their bank account no. 42184195428 and 42184194796 both with SBI, District Court Rohini, near Antariksh Apartment, Delhi i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 25 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 26 of32 to 80 months of equal amount respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
39. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 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 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 26 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 27 of32 residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature 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 before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze 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 pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
40. As discussed above, SBI General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 27 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 28 of32 Rs.37,07,270/-/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 01.04.2021 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
41. R3 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 award 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.
42. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
43. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
44. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 28 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 29 of32 the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022- 22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
45. 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 and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
46. 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 Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 06.04.2021 wherein she had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 29 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 30 of32
47. 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. Digitally signed SHAMA by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.04.02 16:35:59 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 30th March, 2024 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 30 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 31 of32 FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 30.09.2020
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Surjit
3. Age of the deceased: About 23 years 08 months and 29 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private Service
5. Income of the deceased: - Rs.14,842/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Bachchu Singh 53 years Father
(ii) Smt Guddi Devi 48 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.14,842/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs.5936.80/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,778.80-
{ (A+B) - C =D}
4947.33=15831.47/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,89,977.64 /-
12. Multiplier (E) 1813. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs.34,19,597.52/-
F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2) consortium (I) Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 31 of32 Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 32 of32
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.37,07,267.52/- (rounded (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) off Rs.37,07,270/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 7,77,805.84/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.44,85,075.84/- (rounded (L+M) off to Rs.44,85,076/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.5,07,270/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.39,77,806/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 29.04.2024 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by SHAMA SHAMA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2024.04.02 16:35:47 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 30th March, 2024 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi Bachhu Singh and Anr. vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors. Page 32 of32