Delhi District Court
Smt. Vimla Devi vs Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 1/3 on 4 December, 2021
DLCT010005512017
Presented on : 10012017
Registered on : 10012017
Decided on : 04122021
Duration : 04 Years 10 Months
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICERMACT02, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHIPRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 43/17
1. Smt. Vimla Devi
W/o Late Sh. Navneet,
2. Rohit
S/o late Sh. Navneet,
3. Mohit
S/o late Sh. Navneet,
4. Neha
D/o late Sh. Navneet,
All R/o B235, Gali No. 10,
Lal Dora Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi110084. .......Petitioners.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 1/31
MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 1/31
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:17:33
+0530
VERSUS
1. Nehru Lal
S/o Sh. Bachan Singh
R/o VPO Basi Akbar Pur, Gharaunda,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana(Driver & Owner of HR45A0042).
2. M/s HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building,
14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi110001.
Through its Managing Director
(The Insurane Company of HR45A0042). .......Respondents.
AND DLCT010005522017 Presented on : 10012017 Registered on : 10012017 Decided on : 04122021 Duration : 04 Years 10 Months MACT No. 42/17 MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 2/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 2/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:17:48 +0530 Rohit S/o late Sh. Navneet, R/o B235, Gali No. 10, Lal Dora Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi110084. .......Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. Nehru Lal S/o Sh. Bachan Singh R/o VPO Bassi Akbar Pur, Gharaunda,Distt. Karnal, Haryana(Driver & Owner of HR45A0042).
2. M/s HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2nd Floor, SCO No. 237, Sector12, Karnal, Haryana. .......Respondents.
The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 18/02/2016 MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 3/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 3/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:17:57 +0530
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 20/02/2016 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the 10/01/2017 Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. 02/09/2019 P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 10/01/2017 Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 10/01/2017 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the petitioner (s). 10/01/2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA later on?
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 4/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 4/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:06 +0530
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not Mentioned by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not Mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the No liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 5/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 5/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:15 +0530
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the petitioner (s) to the offer NA of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 04/12/2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties?
20. Whether the petitioner (s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
10/11/2020
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were directed to open savings bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 6/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 6/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:23 +0530 effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the petitioner(s) produced the 20/02/2021 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
B235, Gali No.
23. Permanent Residential Address of the 10, petitioner(s). Lal Dora Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi 110084
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/C no. of P1 :
petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with 39828445613, IFSC Code. SBI, Branch :
Burari, Delhi ;
IFSC :
SBIN0017930;
A/C no. of P2 :MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 7/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 7/31
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:36 +0530 39840897027, SBI, Branch :
Burari, Delhi ;
IFSC :
SBIN0017930;
A/C no. of P3 :
39836773959, SBI, Branch :
Burari, Delhi ;
IFSC :
SBIN0017930;
A/C no. of P4 :
39825925056, SBI, Branch :
Burari, Delhi ;
IFSC :
SBIN0017930;
25. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account Yes
(s) in near his place of residence?
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 8/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 8/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:47 +0530
26. Whether the petitioner (s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, SBI, Tis Hazari name and branch of the bank of the Claims Courts, Delhi. Tribunal in which the award amount is to be deposited/transfered.
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Two separate DARs were filed on 10.01.2017 by Investigation Officer (IO) before my Ld. Predecessor in the presence of all the parties of these cases. The DARs were prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 18.02.2016 at about 09.00 AM on Outer Ring Road at a spot situated in front of Dheerpur ITI while moving towards Wazirabad, Delhi. As per DARs a TSR bearing registration No. DL1RN 6733 was struck in the rear by a truck bearing Reg. NO. HR45A0042 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"). Due to the impact, the TSR driver namely Navneet (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and his son MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 9/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 9/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:18:57 +0530 Rohit (hereinafter referred to as "injured") both fell down on the road, out of the TSR. The injured shifted the deceased to a hospital with the help of a passerby, but the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 19.02.2016. An FIR no. 1232016 PS Burari was registered in respect of the said motor vehicle or accident. After due investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle U/s 279/337/304A IPC. R1 is stated to be the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. R2 is the insurer of the same. The DARs were treated as claim petitions. My Ld. Predecessor directed the R 2/insurance company to file separate legal offers/reasoned decision in response to the said DARs. R1 was also directed to file his separate Written Statements in response to the said DARs.
2. Vide orders dated 05.12.2019, my Ld. Predecessor consolidated both the DARs and directed that evidence recorded in the matter titled as Vimla Devi Vs. Nehru Lal etc. MACT no. 43/17 be also read in the connected matter titled as Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal etc. MACT no. 42/17.
3. In compliance of the directions passed by my Ld. Predecessor to file statement of facts in Form G, the petitioners filed a claim petition U/s 166 read with Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation in respect of the untimely death of the deceased in the above mentioned motor vehicular accident. No separate petition was filed by injured.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 10/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 10/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:19:05 +0530
4. A written statement was filed by R1 in response to the DAR regarding the compensation claim in respect of the death of deceased wherein he took preliminary objections to the effect that no cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner as no motor vehicular accident, as alleged in the DAR, ever took place ; that the police officials have concealed material facts and have filed the DAR in order to extract money ; that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R3 at the time of accident and R1 was holding a valid driving license on the date of accident. On merits, the claim of the petitioners was denied by R1.
5. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of R 2/Insurance Company in response to both the DARs wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was duly covered by an insurance policy issued by itself but the liability of R2 was denied on the ground that the DARs do not clarify the identity of the person who disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle to the police. It was further averred that there is a gap of 09 months between the registration of FIR and the seizure of the offending vehicle. It was further averred that the offending vehicle was not available at the spot of accident as alleged in the DARs.
ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 43/17) MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 11/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 11/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:19:14 +0530
6. Vide order dated 01.05.2017, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal in both the DARs:
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Navneet suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 18.02.2016 at about 09:00 AM involving TATA Truck bearing registration no. HR 45A0042 driven & owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 42/17)
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Rohit suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18.02.2016 at about 09:00 AM involving TATA Truck bearing registration no. HR 45A0042 driven & owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 12/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 12/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:19:38 +0530 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT NO. 43/17 (to be read in both cases)
7. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined widow of the deceased namely Smt. Vimla Devi as PW1. PW1, vide her affidavit EX. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased lost his life due to a motor vehicular accident as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. She further stated that the deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of his death and was a professional driver of a TSR earning Rs.
18,000/ per month (approx.). She further deposed to have spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ towards funeral and last rites of the deceased. She has relied upon follow ing documents in support of her claim : Copies of ID proofs of petitioners as well as deceased Ex. PW1/1(Colly)(OSR);
Copy of death certificate Ex. PW1/2 (OSR);
Copy of DAR Ex. PW1/3 (Colly);
Copy of commercial DL of deceased Ex PW1/4(OSR);
Copy of Badge of deceased Ex. PW1/5. (OSR);
Copy of RC of vehicle of deceased as Mark A. MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 13/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 13/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:19:59 +0530 7.1. PW1 was crossexamined in brief on behalf of all the respondents.
7.2 Petitioners further examined injured Rohit as PW2, being the eye witness of the accident. PW2 deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, that the deceased and himself were travelling in the TSR of the deceased at about 6:00 AM on 18.02.2016, TSR was being driven by the deceased. He further deposed that the offending vehicle dashed into the rear of their TSR due to which both of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that the offending vehicle fled from the spot. He further deposed that both of them were removed to Trauma Centre Civil Lines, where his father (deceased) succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident.
He further deposed to have suffered injuries in the said accident. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was also involved in another motor vehicular accident on the same day and in respect of which incident an FIR no. 11416 PS Timar Pur was registered. He further deposed to have remained confined to bed for one month after the accident and to have lost his monthly earnings @ of Rs. 15,000/ per month for a period of 02 months on account of his injuries. He further deposed to have incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000/ on his medical treatment and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards special diet and conveyance. He relied upon a copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1(Colly). PW2 was crossexamined in brief on behalf of all the respondents.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 14/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 14/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:07 +0530 7.3 Petitioner's evidence was then closed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 06.02.2018.
7.4 R2 examined SI Vikas Malik as R2W1, being the third IO of FIR no. 12316 PS Burari. He deposed that the most of the investigation in the said FIR was done by previous IOs namely HC Manoj Kumar and Inspector Ramesh Prasad. He further deposed to have filed a chargesheet in the Court of Ld. MM concerned on 31.01.2019. He placed on record the copy of chargesheet as Ex. R2W1/1(Colly). He further deposed that the passerby namely Chanchal could not be traced out during investigation. He was not crossexamined by any of the parties.
8. R2 further examined ASI Manoj Kumar as R2W2, being the first IO of FIR no. 123/16 PS Burari. He deposed to have reached at the spot upon receiving DD no. 31B on 18.02.2016 at about 9:05 AM alongwith a constable. He further deposed to have discovered the accidental TSR bearing Reg. NO. DL1RL6733 at the spot. He further deposed to have gone to Trauma Center where he met the deceased as well as the injured and collected their MLCs. He further deposed that both were unfit for statement at the relevant time. He further deposed to have searched for the passerby Chanchal but could not trace him. He further deposed to have returned to the place of accident, but he could not find any eye witness. He further deposed to have got the FIR registered, to have prepared the site plan and to have MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 15/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 15/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:15 +0530 seized the accidental TSR. He further deposed that investigation was subsequently handed over to SI Ramesh Kumar. He was crossexamined in brief by the petitioners. R1 did not bother to crossexamine him.
8.1 R2 further examined SI Harender Kumar as R2W3, being the IO of FIR no. 11416 PS Timar Pur. He deposed to have reached at the spot of accident at about 07:19 AM upon receiving DD no. 11A on 18.02.2016 alongwith a constable and discovered two accidental vehicles bearing Reg.
No. DL1RT8619 and HR45A0042. He further deposed to have met the complainant Rakesh Kumar and driver of the offending vehicle Nehru Lal (R1 herein). He further deposed to have got an FIR registered U/s 279 IPC upon the statement of said complainant and to have seized both the vehicles. He further deposed to have filed chargesheet in the Court of Ld. MM concerned. He further deposed that the said matter was disposed of in plea bargaining proceedings, after the accused plead guilty. He placed on record copies of relevant chargesheet and the copy of plea bargaining proceedings as Ex. R2W3/1 (Colly). He was crossexamined in brief by the petitioners. R1 did not bother to crossexamine him.
8.2 R2 further examined Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh as R2W4, being the 2nd IO of FIR no. 123/16 PS Burari. He deposed to have got the body of the deceased examined postmortem and to have recorded the statement of injured during investigation. He further deposed to have served a notice U/s 133 M.V. Act upon R1, in response to which R1 conveyed that he was driving the offending vehicle on 18.02.2016. He deposed to have MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 16/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 16/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:25 +0530 arrested R1 and to have seized the offending vehicle as well as the other relevant documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. He was not cross examined by the other parties.
8.3 R1 and R2 both closed their respective evidence through their counsel on 05.12.2019.
FINDINGS
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Ankit Kalra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, Sh. Paramveer Singh Negi, Ld. Counsel for R1 and Sh. M. Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for R2/Insurance Company. My findings on the above issues are as under: ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 43/17)
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Navneet suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 18.02.2016 at about 09:00 AM involving TATA Truck bearing registration no. HR 45A0042 driven & owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 42/17) MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 17/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 17/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:35 +0530
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Rohit suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18.02.2016 at about 09:00 AM involving TATA Truck bearing registration no. HR 45A0042 driven & owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
10. Both the issues being taken up together as both are interlinked and are to be decided on the basis of the same set of evidence.
11. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 18/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 18/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:45 +0530 case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
12. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined the injured Rohit as PW2, who is also stated to be the eye witness of the incident. PW2 deposed, through his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, that the deceased and himself were travelling in the TSR of the deceased at about 6:00 AM on 18.02.2016, TSR was being driven by the deceased. He further deposed that the offending vehicle dashed into the rear of their TSR due to which both of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that the offending vehicle fled from the spot. He further deposed that both of them were removed to Trauma Centre Civil Lines, where his father succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. He further deposed to have suffered injuries in the said accident. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was also involved in another motor vehicular accident on the same day and in respect of which an FIR no. 11416 PS Timar Pur was registered.
He further deposed to have remained confined to bed for one month after the accident. The said witness has been subjected to crossexamination by both the respondents.
13. However, it may be noted that the said witness has not explained in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A as to how and when he noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. This question assumes importance in view of the fact that the said witness was travelling in a TSR MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 19/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 19/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:20:54 +0530 at the relevant time and given the nature of the canopy installed on the frame of the TSRs in Delhi, it is difficult to assume ordinarily that any passenger, like the witness PW2 herein, is able to see any vehicle following his TSR at all. Particularly when the passenger is not alarmed or is not apprehending any mischief. Admittedly, in the present case PW2 has not stated that he had any apprehension of any sort in order to make him turn around and look for the registration number of the vehicle following the TSR in which he was travelling. Admittedly, the TSR was struck in the rear suddenly and both the deceased as well as the injured (PW2) fell down on the road. This Tribunal fails to understand as to at what moment injured (PW2) managed to look at and note down the registration number of the offending vehicle when he (PW2) he himself admits that the vehicle concerned fled from the spot. PW 2 nowhere states in his affidavit that the offending vehicle had halted at the spot so as to enable him to note down the registration number of the same.
This unresolved dilemma brings the general reliability of the witness PW2 under a cloud of doubt as far as the identity of the offending vehicle is concerned.
14. The person who could have corroborated the testimony of PW2 is the passerby Chanchal, but unfortunately the said person could not be traced by either of the IOs of the case. Perusal of the record further reveals that second IO Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh, who was examined as R2W4 during inquiry, deposed to have recorded the statement of injured (PW2) during the course of investigation in FIR no. 123/16 PS Burari. A copy of the statement MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 20/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 20/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:21:03 +0530 of injured(PW2) recorded U/s 161 CrPC is available on record. The said statement reflects that injured(PW2) told the said IO that after the impact the deceased as well as himself fell down on the road and the driver of the offending vehicle parked the offending vehicle on the side of the road and came towards them (injured and deceased), waited there for two minutes and then fled from the spot alongwith the offending vehicle. At the very outset it may be noted that injured(PW2) never mentioned the above facts in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A filed before this Tribunal. Omission of such a relevant material deals a great blow to the case of the petitioners. Be that as it may, it has been further observed that the said statement of injured (PW2) was recorded U/s 161 CrPC by R2W4 on 20.02.2016. However, the offending vehicle was seized by R2W4 only on 25.11.2016. R2W4 has not explained the inordinate delay in arresting R1 and seizure of the offending vehicle. This delay of 09 months proves to be fatal to the claim of injured(PW2) as far as the identity of the offending vehicle is concerned. It seems that the police has implicated the offending vehicle solely on the basis of the fact that the offending vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident which was the subject matter of FIR no. 114/16 PS Timar Pur. In the absence of any scientific evidence regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the present accident or any technical evidence regarding the availability of R1 or offending vehicle at the spot of accident and in the absence of the oral testimony of passerby Chanchal, it would not be safe to rely upon the uncoroborated oral testimony of injured(PW2).MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 21/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 21/31
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:21:12 +0530
15. No other witness has been examined by the petitioners in order to depict the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. Accordingly, in view of my observations, the above issues in both the cases are decided against the respective petitioners and in favour of the respective respondents.
ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 43/17)
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
ISSUES (FRAMED IN CASE/ MACT No. 42/17)
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
16. In view of the observations made in issue no. 1 above, the respective petitioners are not entitled to any relief. This issue is decided against the respective petitioners.
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 22/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 22/31Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:21:24 +0530 ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF (FRAMED IN BOTH CASES/ MACT NO. 43/17 & 42/17)
17. In view of the observations made under aforesaid issues no. 1 & 2, no relief is admissible to the respective petitioners in both petitions. Hence, the both petitions stand dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:22:20
+0530
Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN)
On this 04th day of December, 2021 Judge, MACT02 (CENTRAL)
Delhi/04/12/2021
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 23/31
MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 23/31
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:22:28
+0530
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 18.02.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Navneet 2A. Name of the Injured : Sh. Rohit
3. Age of the deceased. : 57 Years 3A. Age of the injured : 32 years.
4. Occupation of the deceased.: Claimed to be a driver 4A. Occupation of the injured : Private job
5. Income of the deceased : NIL 5A. Income of the injured : NIL
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 24/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 24/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:22:37 +0530 S. No. Name Age Relation (I) Smt. Vimla 52 Years Wife of the Devi deceased (in MACT no.
43/17)
(ii) Rohit 32 Years Son of the deceased (in MACT no.
43/17)
(iii) Mohit 28 Years Son of the
deceased (in
MACT no.
43/17)
(iv) Neha 31 Years Daughter of the
deceased (in
MACT no.
43/17)
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 25/31
MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 25/31
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:22:46
+0530
(v) Rohit 32 Years Petitioner (in
MACT no.
42/17)
Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the NIL deceased(A)
8. AddFuture NIL Prospects (B)
9. LessPersonal NIL expenses of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of NIL dependency[(A+B) C=D] MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 26/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 26/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:22:56 +0530
11. Annual loss of NIL dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) NIL
13. Total loss of NIL dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical NIL Expenses(G)
15. Compensation for NIL loss of consortium(I)
16. Compensation for NIL loss of estate(J)
17. Compensation NIL MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 27/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 27/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:23:06 +0530 towards funeral expenses(K)
18.
TOTAL NIL
COMPENSATIO
N
(F+G+H+I+J+K=
L)
19.
RATE OF NIL
INTEREST
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up NIL
to the date of
award
21.
Total amount NIL
including interest
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 28/31
MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 28/31
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:23:15
+0530
22.
Award amount NIL
released
23.
Award amount NIL
kept in FDRs
24.
Mode of NIL
disbursement of the
award amount to
the petitioner (s)
25.
Next date for NIL
compliance of the
award
MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 29/31
MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 29/31
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04
16:23:24
+0530
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 04/12/2021.
2. Both the present petitions stand dismissed.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:23:58 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central 02) Delhi /04/12/2021 MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 30/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 30/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:24:08 +0530 MACT NO. 43/17 & MACT NO. 42/17 04/12/2021 Present: None.
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stands disposed of.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:24:16 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O.MACT(Central02) Delhi /04/12/2021 MACT NO. 43/17 Vimla Devi & Ors Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 31/31 MACT NO. 42/17 Rohit Vs. Nehru Lal & Ors. Page No. 31/31 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.04 16:24:24 +0530