Delhi District Court
Sh. Mahender Kumar (Father Of The ... vs Sh. Dipesh Singh (Driver) on 19 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 358287/2016
CNR No. DLCT010123452016
1. Sh. Mahender Kumar (Father of the deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan
2. Smt. Poonam (Mother of the deceased))
W/o Sh. Mahender Kumar
Both Resident of :
20, Sunder Park, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi110031.
......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Dipesh Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Prem Narayan Singh,
R/o Village Makhi, P.S. Makhi Distt.
Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Sh. Vinod Sethi (Owner)
S/o Sh. Gyan Chand Sethi,
R/o 45B, LIG Flats, Pocket12,
Jasola Vihar, Delhi.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurance Co.)
6th Floor, Ansalas Imperial Tower,
CBlock Community Centre,
Naraina Vihar, Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 17.09.2016
Arguments concluded on: 14.02.2022
Date of Award: 19.02.2022
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016
Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 1 of 40
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
17.09.2016 and was registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition in
respect of an accident which took place on 08.04.2016 at 5.00 AM, near
Metro Pillar No. 205, Main Patel Road, Delhi wherein Vinay Kumar
had sustained fatal injuries.
FACTS:
(2) The facts in brief as emerged from the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) are that on the intervening night of 08.04.2016, Sh. Vinay Kumar (since deceased) was coming towards his house after dropping the Newspapers of Hindustan Times at Dwarka by his Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL2CAL4707. At about 5.15 AM, when Vinay Kumar reached at Pillar No. 205, Main Patel Road, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LM6375 (make Eicher Tempo) was parked between the road negligently without caring and obeying the traffic rules, regulations, any precaution and parking light etc., due to which reason the vehicle of the deceased collided with the offending vehicle as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries over the vital parts of his body. It is also pleaded that thereafter reached at the spot and brought the deceased to RML Hospital, New Delhi but during treatment the injured Vinay Kumar expired on 14.04.2016. It is pleaded that the postmortem of the deceased was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Hari Nagar on Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 2 of 40 15.04.2016.
(3) A detailed common reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh (Driver) & respondent no.2 (Owner) Vinod Sethi wherein it is submitted that the offending vehicle Eicher MGV bearing registration No. DL1LM6375 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 and the liability if any in the present case shall be discharged by the Insurance Company. It is also pleaded that the injured may kindly be put to strict proof regarding his age occupation, income, medical bill etc. and the respondents reserve their right to file suitable and proper reply as and when the other documents relating to the facts and circumstances are filed by the injured. It is further pleaded that the police officials have not investigated the matter in proper manner and they have falsely got involved the vehicle of the respondents in the present case. It is pleaded that the respondents no.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the alleged injured as the vehicle of the respondent was not involved in the present accident and moreover, the said vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 and the liability, if any, the insurance company is liable to pay the same to the alleged injured / claimant.
(4) The respondent no.3 Insurance Company has also filed a reply cumlegal offer wherein the Insurance Company accepted its liability and offered a total compensation of Rs.8,81,304/, however it is submitted that since the deceased rammed his vehicle from behind into a stationary truck therefore, 50% is liable to be deducted from Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 3 of 40 compensation and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the total compensation of Rs.4,40,652/.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court which are as under:
1. Whether the deceased Vinay Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 08.04.2016 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LM6375 (Tempo Eicher) by respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined six witnesses. The petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahender Kumar has examined himself as PW1; Sh. Arvind Chopra as PW2; Sh. Saurav Sehgal as PW3; IO Inspector Nafe Singh as PW4 and Sh. Dinesh Kumar as PW5. In so far as the respondents are concerned, they have not led any Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 4 of 40 evidence.
(7) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of all the witnesses examined by the petitioners are put in tabulated form as under: S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioners Witnesses
1. Sh. Mahender PW1 Sh. Mahender Kumar is the father of deceased Kumar (PW1) Vinay Kumar who in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated the version of the police in the DAR. He has placed his reliance on the following documents:
1. Photocopy of his Aadhar Card and Election I.D. Card which are collectively Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Photocopy of Aadhar Card and Election I.D. Card of mother of the deceased Smt. Poonam which are collectively Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Photocopy of Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card, Driving License, PAN Card of the deceased Vijay Kumar which are collectively Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of death certificate of the deceased Sh. Vinay Kumar which is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Certified copy of DAR which is Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
6. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW1/6 (Colly).
7. Postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/7.
8. Photocopy of driving license of the respondent no.1 which is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Copy of registration certificate, national permit, fitness of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LM6375 which is Ex.PW1/9 (Colly).
10. Insurance Policy of offending vehicle which is Ex.PW1/10.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, the witness has deposed as under: That he was not present at the time of accident and hence, he cannot tell the manner in which the Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 5 of 40 accident had taken place That he has not filed any document in support of his claim that he had spent Rs.50,000/ on the treatment of his son.
That he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of the income of his deceased son.
That the age of his wife is 45 years.
2. Sh. Arvind PW2 Sh. Arvind Chopra is person from whom the Chopra (PW2) deceased learnt to repair the work of AC. He has in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is running a shop for repair of AC and fridge at Jagatpuri, Delhi.
2. That the deceased used to visit his shop occasionally in connection with the repair of AC etc. but he did not employee him at any point of time.
3. That during the said period i.e. year 2008 to 2010, he used to give him Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ and when he left his shop he had learnt how to repair AC and fridge.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: ➢ That he is in this profession for the last 3233 years.
➢ That he has not brought any documents in this regard.
➢ That he is not income tax assessee and used to pay in cash.
➢ That he has no documentary evidence to show that he used to work at his shop.
➢ That he has denied the suggestion that he is not running any shop for repair of AC and Fridge and that Vinay had never worked at my shop.
3. Sh. Saurav PW3 Sh. Saurav Sehgal is the person whose vehicles are Sehgal (PW3) attached with the Hindustan Times Newspaper and in his examinationinchief he has deposed on the following aspects: Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 6 of 40
1. That his vehicles are attached with the Hindustan Times News Paper.
2. That one of Maruti van bearing registration No. 4707 of Vinay was attached with him, however, he does not remember the complete number of the van.
3. That he used to pay him (Vinay Kumar) Rs.480/ per day but he is not maintaining any record in this regard.
4. That he used to pay the payment in cash and he does not maintain any record.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, the witness has deposed on the following aspects: ➢ That he has denied the suggestion that the Maruti Van of Vijay Kumar was not attached with him and due to that reason he failed to produce any record showing that he used to pay Rs.480/ per day. ➢ That he has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being the friend of Vijay Kumar.
4. Inspector Nafe PW4 Inspector Nafe Singh is the Investigating Officer of Singh (PW4) the present case. He has in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the investigation of the case bearing FIR No. 226/2016, Police Station Ranjeet Nagar was assigned to him on 14.04.2018.
2. That during investigation, he recorded the statement of eye witness Dinesh Kumar.
3. That he sent the dead body of deceased Vijay Kumar for postmortem.
4. That he also arrested the accused Dipesh Singh.
5. That both the vehicles involved in the accident got mechanically inspected.
6. That he also recorded the statement of PCR Van Incharge HC Ram Prasad.
7. That during investigations, documents of both the vehicles were seized and got verified including driving license of the accused and the same was found correct.
8. That after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet and DAR.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 7 of 40 In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, the witness has denied the suggestion that he has not conducted the investigation properly and falsely implicated the respondent no.1 and 2 in the DAR.
5. Sh. Dinesh PW5 Sh. Dinesh Kumar is an eye witness to the accident.
Kumar (PW5) He has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he does not remember date and month of the incident however, the accident had taken place on the first Navratra of 2016.
2. That he is working as conductor in DTC Bus.
3. That on that day, he was going to Vasant Vihar Depot, accordingly, he reached Patel Nagar Bus Stop between 4.00 AM to 4.30 AM.
4. That he saw that one tempo was parked across the road towards its left side and all of a sudden, he heard the impact of collision.
5. That consequently he reached near the tempo from the red light point as grills were installed at the central verge.
6. That after reaching there, he found that one Maruti Van was rammed in the rear portion of the tempo.
7. That only driver was inside the Maruti Van.
8. That he informed the police at 100 number.
9. That accordingly, police reached at the spot and took the injured to hospital.
10. That from there, he proceeded to his work place.
11. That after 1520 days of the accident, police called him at Police Station Rajender Nagar and at that time, police made inquiry about the accident.
12. That he does not remember the registration number of the tempo and Maruti Van.
13. That police did not seize the vehicle involved in the accident in his presence.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: ➢ That the accident had taken place first day of winter Navratra of 2016.
➢ That the accident had not taken place in the summer Navratra of 2016.
➢ That the accident had taken place on the road which leads from Shadipur Metro Station to Patel Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 8 of 40 Nagar Metro Station.
➢ That there are electricity on both side of the road, however, on that day the street lights were not on and due to that reason, vehicles were not visible on the road.
➢ That the truck was visible to him from the bus stop. ➢ That the distance between him and tempo was about 70 feet and thus, he can say that the visibility at the time of accident was about 70 feet.
➢ That he has not seen the collision between the tempo and maruti van.
➢ That his attention was reflected towards accidental vehicles after hearing the impact of collision.
➢ That when he reached the spot, he found that indicators of tempo was not on.
➢ That he cannot say whether prior to collision the indicators were on or not.
Specific Court Question was put to the witness whether the accident took place on 08.04.2016 to which the witness replied that the accident had taken place in the month of April, 2016 but he does not remember the date. Further, the witness has deposed that he told the registration numbers of both the vehicles to the police during investigation but he does not remember the same. Again, on a specific Court Question the witness has admitted that in the month of April there is sufficient light between 4:00 AM to 4:30 AM and people go for morning walk.
6. Sh. Arun PW6 Sh. Arun Pathak the Authorized Representative, HT Pathak (PW6) Media Ltd. Hindustan Times is a summoned witness and has brought the summoned record. He has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he has brought the photocopy of power of attorney executed in his favour by Sh. Dinesh Mittal, whole time Director, HT Media Ltd., copy of which is Ex.PW6/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A on both the pages.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 9 of 40
2. That he has also brought the printout of email dated 29.10.2019 received by him which is Ex.PW6/B and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW6/C bearing his signatures at point A.
3. That the deceased Vinay Kumar was working with Sourabh Transport which associated to them.
4. That the deceased Vinay Kumar was used to drive the vehicle of Saurabh Transport for dropping the newspapers on different locations.
In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 the witness has deposed on the following aspects: ➢ That the deceased had no relation with the HT Media Ltd.
➢ That they do not have any document to show that whether the deceased was actually working with Sourabh Transport.
➢ That he does not have any document to show that what was the exact nature of job of the deceased or at all the deceased was employed with Sourabh Transport.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondent no.3. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Vinay Kumar had died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 08.04.2016 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 10 of 40 driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LM 6375 (Tempo Eicher) by respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh?
(9) The case of the petitioners is that on the intervening night of 08.04.2016 Sh. Vinay Kumar (since deceased) was coming towards his house after dropping the Newspapers of Hindustan Times at Dwarka by his Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL2CAL4707. At about
5.15 AM, when Vinay Kumar reached at Pillar No. 205, Main Patel Road, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LM6375 (make Eicher Tempo) was stationed between the road negligently without caring and obeying the traffic rules, regulations, any precaution and parking light etc., due to which reason the vehicle of the deceased collided with the offending vehicle as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries over the vital parts of his body. Police reached the spot and brought the deceased to RML Hospital, New Delhi but during treatment the injured Vinay Kumar expired on 14.04.2016. It is alleged by the petitioners that the accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh who had parked the offending vehicle in the middle of the road without taking any precautions and had the driver of the offending vehicle been careful, the accident in question could have been easily averted. (10) On the other hand, the case of the respondents no.1 and 2 is that on the intervening night of 08.04.2016 the vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 brokedown on the main Patel Road after which it got stationed there. According to the respondents no.1 and Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 11 of 40 2, the traffic rules & regulations were followed and parking lights along with reflector were kept on for taking necessary precaution. (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 by the petitioners.
Identity of the respondent no.1 as Driver of the offending vehicle:
(12) Coming first to the identity of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375, I may note that the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh has nowhere disputed that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. Rather, it is the case of the respondents no.1 and 2 that the accident had taken place on account of the sole negligence of the deceased. The respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh has also been charge sheeted in the criminal case bearing FIR No. 226/2016, U/s. 279/337/ 304A IPC, PS Ranjit Nagar. This being the background, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 stands established.
Rashness and Negligence attributed to the respondent no.1:
(13) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh. According to the petitioners, the accident in question had taken place on account of the Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 12 of 40 negligence of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh who parked the vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 in the middle of the road without caring and obeying the traffic rules/ regulations and without taking any precautions of keeping the parking lights on and putting the reflector on. In this regard, the petitioners have examined the alleged eye witness Dinesh Kumar (PW5) who has specifically deposed that he is working as conductor in DTC Bus and on the date of accident, he was going to Vasant Vihar Depot and reached Patel Nagar Bus Stop between 4.00 AM to 4.30 AM. According to him, he saw that one tempo was parked across the road towards its left side and all of a sudden, he heard the impact of collision on which he reached the spot and found that one Maruti Van was rammed in the rear portion of the tempo.
(14) A perusal of the copy of chargesheet filed along with the DAR shows that on 08.04.2016 when SI Ram Avtar reached the spot pursuant to receipt of DD No. 3A, he found the Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL 1LM6375 stationed in the middle of the road. It was also found that parking lights were not switched on at that time nor there was any reflector nor any safety measure/ precautions were taken to alert the traffic coming from back side. This fact finds due corroboration from the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW5) who specifically deposed that when he reached the spot he found that indicators of tempo was not on. He has further clarified that though there is electricity on both sides of the road but on that day the street lights were not operating/ switched on due to which reason the vehicles were not visible on the Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 13 of 40 road.
(15) I may further observe that after concluding the investigations, the Investigating Officer had removed the provisions of Section 279 IPC but invoked the provisions of Sections 122/177 and 134(a) of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh who parked the vehicle in question on the road negligently and without due cause and caution and also did not help the injured Vinay Kumar in getting timely medical assistance.
(16) The site plan of the place of the accident, which also forms a part of the DAR, shows that the offending vehicle was stationed in the middle of the road. Further, the Mechanical Inspection Report of Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 shows there were following fresh damages:
1. Rear lower body guard dented & bended from right side.
2. Rear body door dented.
3. Left side rear outside complete tyre was removed.
(17) Also, the Mechanical Inspection Report of the Maruti Van bearing No. DL2CAL4707 shows that there were following fresh damages:
1. Front bumper damaged.
2. Both head lights broken.
3. Front side body frame damaged.
4. Front side both body pillar damaged.
5. Front wind screen damaged.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 14 of 40
6. Roof frame damaged.
7. Both side door damaged & dislocated.
8. Front both Axle System bended.
9. Steering system damaged.
10. Dashboard & speedometer broken.
(18) The above Mechanical Inspection Reports show that the Maruti Van had rammed into the Eicher Tempo from behind. Here, I may note that though in the chargesheet the Investigating Officer claimed that the during inquiry it was revealed that the Eicher Tempo had brokendown, yet in their joint written statement, the respondents no.1 and 2 have not taken this plea and only claimed that their vehicle had been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 was parked in the middle of the road due to breakdown nor the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh has appeared in the witness box to prove the said aspect. (19) Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised an argument that the deceased himself was negligent and had rammed into a stationed vehicle despite the fact that the visibility at the time of accident was about 70 feet and in this regard, he has placed his reliance upon the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW5).
(20) Certain important aspects which emerged from the testimonies of various witnesses are flagged as under:
➢ That as per the Mechanical Inspection Report (forming a part of the DAR) of the stationed vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 15 of 40 No. DL1LM6375, the left side rear outside complete tyre had been removed establishing the breakdown of the stationed vehicle.
➢ That the Site Plan of the spot of accident (forming a part of the DAR) shows the position of stationed vehicle which had breakdown in the middle of the road at Point 'A' and in his testimony the witness Dinesh Kumar (PW5) has confirmed the said position that the stationed vehicle was left unattended in the middle of the road.
➢ That as per the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW5) who had made a PCR call, the street lights were not operating (switched on) at the time of the accident and it was totally dark and low visibility.
➢ That as per the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW5) the stationed vehicle did not have indicators or blinking lights/ parking lights switched on at the time of accident so as to alert the other users of the road. Further, there was also no other indication to alert the road users in the form of reflectors or signboard or marking on the road side, as mandated under Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 .
➢ That the respondents have not examined any witness and the entire evidence led by the petitioners has gone unrebutted. (21) The fact that the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh had stationed the vehicle whose tyre had been removed, in the middle of the road and Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 16 of 40 left the vehicle abandoned without blinkers, parking lights or indicators switched on and that too at a time when the street lights were not operational, establishes the rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh. Therefore, the deceased Vinay Kumar cannot be held to be in any way negligent and there was no contributory negligence. In fact, there was total negligence on the part of the driver of the Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375 who had abandoned the creakdown vehicle in the middle of the road without any indications.
(22) 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 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.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 17 of 40 (23) By application of the above principles, I hereby hold that the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh the driver of offending vehicle i.e. Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375.
Injuries caused to the deceased:
(24) In so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the deceased Vinay Kumar is concerned, I have gone through the photocopy of the MLC of Vinay Kumar prepared at RML Hospital shows that the injured Vinay Kumar was brought to the hospital on 08.04.2016 at 5:45 AM with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident. On local examination there were following injuries:
1. Wound of size 5 x 5 x 1 cm over forehead.
2. Deformity, tenderness in right thigh
3. Lacerated wound of size 5 x 3 cm over dorsum of left foot.
(25) Further, as per the Death Summary which forms a part of DAR, shows that the injured Vinay Kumar remained admitted in RML Hospital and was declared dead on 14.04.2016 at 9:30 AM. The Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW1/7 shows that there were following external injuries:
1. Clear lacerated wounds over right forearm of about 3 cm X 1 cm.
2. Multiple abrasions over face (forehead, nose, chin, neck) of about 5 cm X 5 cm X 1 cm.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 18 of 40
3. Multiple abrasions over left leg and dorsum of left foot of about 5 cm X 3 cm, 5 cm X 3 cm.
4. Multiple abrasions over left knee of about 4 cm X 2 cm and 3 cm X 1 cm.
5. Fracture of right shaft of femur.
6. Right nasal bone fractured.
(26) The cause of death opined by the Autopsy Surgeon is Septicemia. The respondents have not disputed the factum of death of Vinay Kumar 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 Vinay Kumar had expired on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
(27) This being the background and coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh has been made an accused in FIR No. 226/2016, PS Ranjit Nagar under Sections 304A IPC & 122/177, 134(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, wherein he has been arrested, I hereby hold that the deceased Vinay Kumar had expired on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident which took place on 08.04.2016 at about 5:00 PM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi on account negligence of respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh the driver of Eicher Tempo bearing No. DL1LM6375. (28) The issue is accordingly disposed off.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 19 of 40 Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(29) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was aged about 27 years having good physique and was not suffering from any kind of decease and had expertise in AC Repairing etc, and was earning Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/ from the same. It is also the case of the petitioners that besides this, the deceased was also working for the Hindustan Times and dropping the Newspapers published by Hindustan Times at Dwarka and other places and was earning about Rs.18,000/ to Rs.20,000/ from the same and in total, the earning of the deceased was around Rs.35,000/ to Rs.40,000/ per month and was supporting the petitioners to bear their day to day expenses of life. It is also pleaded that the deceased was spending his income on the maintenance of his parents, two sisters and brother and the income of the deceased was increasing every year but because of his untimely sudden death in the said accident, the petitioners have sustained mantle torture, pain and agony. It is further pleaded that the petitioners have lost the love and affection of the father and mother respectively and were having lot of love and affection of deceased towards them. The petitioners are claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Lacs) on account of the death of deceased and for the losses suffered by them.
(30) In so far as the respondent no.3 Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. is concerned, they have offered a sum of Rs.4,40,652/ towards full and final compensation, which has not been accepted by the Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 20 of 40 LRs of the deceased.
(31) I have considered the evidence on record. I may note that the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017 and laid down general principles relating to computation of compensation in death cases, which are as under:
"........18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
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:
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 21 of 40 Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
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.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 22 of 40 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....." .
(32) 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 Vinay Kumar was aged 27 at the time of accident. In this regard, the petitioners have placed on record the copy of Aadhaar Card of the deceased Vinay Kumar of which is Ex.PW1/3. I have gone through the Aadhaar Card of the deceased Ex.PW1/3 according to which the year of birth of deceased Vinay Kumar was 1989 and accordingly, he was aged 27 years at the time of accident on 08.04.2016. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased.
This being the background, I hold that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 27 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 Seventeen (17). (33) Now coming to the Income of the Deceased, I may observe that according to the petitioners the deceased Vinay Kumar was doing the repairing work of Air Conditioner and Refrigerator etc. and used to earn Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/ per month. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased also used to deliver the Newspapers published by Hindustan Times at Dwarka and other places and was earning about Rs.18,000/ to Rs.20,000/ from the same and in total, the earning of the deceased was around Rs.35,000/ to Rs.40,000/ per Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 23 of 40 month. In this regard, the petitioners have placed their reliance upon the testimonies of Sh. Arvind Chopra (PW2), Sh. Saurav Sehgal (PW3) and Sh. Arun Pathak (PW6). I have gone through the testimonies of the above witnesses and also the documents placed on record. I may note that no document in the form of salary register, salary slip, vouchers, Income Tar Returns etc. has been placed on record to show the income of the deceased Vinay Kumar. The witness Arvind Chopa (PW2) has categorically stated that he has no documentary evidence to show that the deceased used to work at his shop. Further, Sh. Saurav Sehgal (PW3) has admitted that he is not maintaining any record showing that he used to pay Rs.480/ per day to the deceased. In fact, Sh. Arun Pathak (PW6) has admitted that they do not have any document to show that whether the deceased was actually working with Sourabh Transport and what was the nature of job of the deceased. (34) I may also note that the petitioners have not placed on record the educational qualification of the deceased Vinay Kumar. 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 08.04.2016 i.e. Rs.9,568/ (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Eight only) shall be considered as income of the deceased.
(35) In so far as the aspect of Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, I may note that the deceased Vinay Kumar was unmarried and had left behind the following Legal Heirs:
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 24 of 40
1. Sh. Mahender - Father.
2. Smt. Poonam - Mother.
3. Ms. Neha - Sister (Recently Married).
4. Ms. Deepika - Sister (Unmarried).
5. Sh. Vipul - Brother (Unmarried) (36) In so far as the aspect of dependency is concerned, I may note that the petitioner no.1 Mahender (PW1) has in his examination in chief has specifically stated that the deceased has left behind his dependents i.e. the father (Mahender) aged about 50 years and Smt. Poonam aged about 46 years. Sh. Mahender (PW1) who is the father of the deceased is aged about 50 years at the time of accident and hence, keeping in view the age of the father of the deceased, the sisters and brother of the deceased Vinay Kumar (who are all major) shall not be considered as dependents upon the deceased, more so when there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was contributing towards the education of his siblings. Therefore, only his parents i.e. Father and Mother who shall be considered as the dependents of the deceased Vinay Kumar. 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 half of his income.
(37) Coming next to the Compensation under nonpecuniary heads, I may note that the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 25 of 40 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'.
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."
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 26 of 40 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.
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 Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 27 of 40 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.....".
(38) However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410 has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 28 of 40 (39) 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 parents of the deceased.
(40) 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) 9,568/ per month
(as per minimum wages)
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% = 3,827/
3. Less 1/2 deduction towards personal (9,568 + 3,827) / 2 = and living expenses of the deceased 6,697.50 (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (9,568 + 3,827) -
[(A+B) - C = D] 6,697.50 = 6,697.50
5. Annual loss of Dependency (D x 12) 6,697.50 x 12 = 80,370/
6. Multiplier (E) 17
7. Total loss of dependency 80,370 x 17 = 13,66,290/
D x 12 x E = F
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/ Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 29 of 40
12. Compensation for funeral expenses 15,000/ (K)
13. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K 14,76,290/ = L) Round Of: 14,76,500/ (41) I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 17.09.2016 till realization (except for the period w.e.f. 30.10.2018 till 19.11.2020. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 30.10.2018 the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal had debarred the petitioners from claiming interest till they conclude the evidence which evidence was closed on 22.02.2019. Thereafter on 08.03.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal again directed that the petitioners shall not be entitled for any interest till they get recorded statements regarding financial status, which statements were recorded on 19.11.2020).
Apportionment:
(42) The petitioner no.1 Mahender is the father of the deceased Vinay Kumar whereas petitioner no.2 Smt. Poonam is the mother of the deceased. Both the petitioner shall be entitled to get the compensation in equal proportions. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as under:
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 30 of 40 Sr. Name of the Relation with Percentage of Amount in No. claimant deceased award amount (Rs.) 1 Sh. Mahender Father 50% 7,38,250/ 2 Smt. Poonam Mother 50% 7,38,250/ Disbursement:
(43) The Financial Statements of the petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahender Kumar and petitioner no.2 Smt. Poonam were recorded by this Tribunal on 19.11.2020 according to which their family expenses are about Rs.35,000/ per month.
(44) Keeping in view the above, I hereby direct that in so far as the petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahender (Father of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,38,250/ plus half of the interest amount be released to him from his share and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs) shall be put in Thirty monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 30 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 his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 31 of 40 with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
However, the petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahender shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,38,250/ plus half of interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself. (45) In so far as the petitioner no.2 Smt. Poonam (Mother of the deceased) is concerned on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,38,250/ plus half of the interest amount be released to her from her share and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs) shall be put in Thirty monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 30 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 or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, the petitioner no.2 Smt. Poonam shall have liberty to seek the release of Rs.1,38,250/ plus half of Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 32 of 40 interest amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(46) The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been 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.
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 33 of 40
(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.
(47) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatXV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 08.04.2016
2. Name of the deceased: Vinay Kumar
3. Age of the deceased: 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.9,568/ (As per minimum wages)
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
Sr. No. Name Age Relation (i) Sh. Mahender 55 years Father (ii) Smt. Poonam 50 years Mother
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 34 of 40 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 7 Annual Income of deceased (A) 9,568/ per month (as per minimum wages) 8 Add future prospect (B) @ 40% = 3,827/ 9 Less 1/2 deductions towards personal (9,568 + 3,827) / 2 = and living expenses of the deceased (C) 6,697.50 10 Monthly loss of dependency (9,568 + 3,827) - 6,697.50 [(A+B) - C = D] = 6,697.50 11 Annual loss of Dependency 6,697.50 x 12 = 80,370/ (D x 12) 12 Multiplier (E) 17 13 Total loss of dependency 80,370 x 17 = 13,66,290/ DxE=F 14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 15 Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H) 16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000 x 2 = 80,000/ 17 Compensation for loss of Estate (J) 15,000/ 18 Compensation for funeral expenses (K) 15,000/ 19 Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J = K) 14,76,290/ Round Of: 14,76,500/ 20 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 6% 21 Interest amount upto the date of award Rs.2,98,459/ (L) (3 Years, 4 Months and 13 Days) 22 Total amount including interest Rs.17,74,959/ 23 Award amount released As per paragraphs no. 44 & 45 Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 35 of 40 24 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraphs no. 44 & 45 25 Mode of disbursement of the award As per paragraphs no. 44 amount to the claimant(s) & 45 26 Next Date of compliance of the award 25.03.2022 Liability:
(48) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, since the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1M6375 was being driven by respondent no.1 Dipesh Singh; respondent no.2 Vinod Sethi is the registered owner and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability. (49) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(50) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.14,76,500/ (Rupees Fourteen Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 36 of 40 Lacs, Seventy Six Thousand, Five Hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 17.09.2016 till realization (except for the period w.e.f. 30.10.2018 till 19.11.2020). The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT01, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/ transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(51) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 Iffco Tokio 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 Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 37 of 40 within 15 days of the deposit with upto date interest with a copy to the counsel for the claimant namely Sh. Jogesh Gupta Advocate, Chamber No. G210B, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, Mobile No. 9818085900.
(52) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 25.03.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(53) 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.
(54) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 19.02.2022 PO, MACT01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 38 of 40 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 08.04.2016 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (FAR) the year 2016 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the victim(s) Not Applicable being a case of the year 2016 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Driver Not Applicable being a case of the year 2016 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Owner Not Applicable being a case of the year 2016 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (IAR) the year 2016 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form VIB Not Applicable being a case of from the Victim(s) the year 2016 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail Accident 17.09.2016 Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted? 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 09.09.2016 by the Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer Legal Offer was filed by the of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company on 21.10.2016 but there is no specific date of response of the claimants. However, the matter Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 39 of 40 was referred to Mediation but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties 14 Date of award 19.02.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open No such order was passed by the savings bank account(s) near their place of Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal residence? at the time of filing of DAR 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were No such order was passed by the directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal his place of residence and produce PAN card at the time of filing of DAR and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the On 19.11.2020 both the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near petitioners have produced their the place of their residence alongwith the Aadhar Cards, PAN Cards and endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? the first page of their bank pass book which were without necessary endorsement.
PAN Card No. of petitioner no.1 Mahender is ARLPK0071B PAN Card No. of petitioner no.2 Poonam is EMZPP9809R 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) Yes is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. Financial Statements of time of passing of the Award to ascertain both the petitioners were recorded his/their financial condition? on 19.11.2020 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 19.02.2022 Mahender & Anr. Vs. Dipesh Singh & Ors. MACT No. 358287/2016 Award dated 19.02.2022 Page No. 40 of 40