Delhi District Court
Rambir Yadav vs . Harish Yadav & Anr. on 17 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL :
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
MACP No. 283/17
Rambir Yadav Vs. Harish Yadav & Anr.
Sh. Rambir Yadav
S/o. Sh. Sada Ram
R/o. Near Holy Chowk,
Rajokri, New Delhi.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Harish Yadav
S/o Sh. Rambir Yadav
R/o. Near Holy Chowk,
Rajokri, New Delhi.
2. M/s IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd.
IFFCO Sadan, C-1,
District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi-110015.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 30.11.2017 Date of framing of issues : 23.08.2018 Date of concluding arguments : 07.09.2020 Date of decision : 17.09.2020 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- raised in this petition relates to death of Smt. Kamla in a road accident that took place on 09.07.2017, at around 8.15 am, near Village Pachgaon, District Gurugram, Haryana on NH-8, regarding which one FIR No. 282/2017, under Sections 279/338/304A IPC was registered at PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, Haryana. This claim petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Rambir Yadav, who is her husband, under Section 163A of the Motor MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 1 of 19 Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, M.V. Act), which is based on the principle of 'no-fault liability'.
2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on the above said date and time of accident, the deceased was riding on pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-12SD-6073 being driven and owned by his son Sh. Harish Yadav, i.e. respondent no.1 (R-1) and they were going from their residence in village Rajokri, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to some relative's place at Rewari, Haryana. When their motorcycle reached at the above place of accident, it is claimed to have been hit by some unknown truck/container coming from opposite direction and being driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result thereof, the deceased suffered severe injuries and she was removed to Rockland Hospital, Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana and her MLC was prepared there. However, she scummed to her injuries during course of treatment in the said hospital on the same day.
3. Since the offending truck/container could not be traced out during the course of investigation, the petitioner had approached this tribunal for compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and the above Harish Yadav was impleaded in petition as R-1 as well as R-2 in his dual capacities of driver and owner respectively of the above motorcycle and Insurance Co. of the motorcycle was impleaded as respondent no.3 (R-
3). However, since it was observed by this tribunal in its order dated 22.02.2018 that there was no requirement of impleading the above Harish Yadav separately in his above capacities and he should have been impleaded as R-1 only and Insurance Co. of the motorcycle as R-2, hence one amended memo of parties in terms of the above order has been subsequently filed on record on behalf of the petitioner.
4. It is necessary to mention here that one separate claim petition, being MACP No. 284/17, was also filed by the above Harish Yadav MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 2 of 19 before this tribunal seeking compensation for some injuries claimed to have been suffered by him in the said accident, but when maintainability of the said petition was challenged on behalf of R-2/Insurance Co. through a separate application moved in said petition, the above MACP No.284/17 filed by Harish Yadav was dismissed as withdrawn on request of his counsel vide order dated 12.07.2018 passed by this tribunal as prima-facie, he himself being owner of the vehicle implicated in these petitions could not have been considered to be a third party qua the Insurance Co. of his own motorcycle, i.e. R-2.
5. It is also necessary to mention here that a separate application challenging maintainability of the present petition bearing No. 283/17 filed qua death of deceased Smt. Kamla was also filed on behalf of R- 2/Insurance Co. on ground that her income in the petition has been stated as Rs.8,500/- pm being the minimum wages and hence, this petition under Section 163A was not maintainable because as per the Schedule attached to the above said Section, the petition can only be held maintainable if earnings of the deceased were Rs.48,000/- pa, i.e Rs.4,000/- pm. In this regard, it is observed that the limit of earnings of a deceased/victim as per the said Schedule is not Rs.48,000/- pa, but it is actually Rs.40,000/- pa. However, in any case, this objection raised by R- 2/ Insurance Co. was dismissed by this tribunal vide order 12.07.2018 and the petition was held to be maintainable in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases of Rukmani Devi Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2202 and Smt. Suman Malhotra & Anr. Vs Gulfam & Ors, 2013 (6) AD (Delhi) 60, as per which the income of a victim in such cases can still be capped at Rs.40,000/- per annum.
6. Though appearance on behalf of both the respondents have been filed before this tribunal in this petition, but R-1 had chosen not to file any WS/reply to the claim petition. However, R-2/Insurance Co. had duly filed MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 3 of 19 its reply/WS on record challenging the maintainability of petition on the above said ground, as already discussed, and also their liability to pay any compensation to petitioner on the ground that R-1 was not holding a valid driving licence (DL) at the relevant time of accident. However, it had not denied the fact that as on the date of accident, the above motorcycle owned by R-1 was insured with their company.
7. On the basis of above pleadings of parties, this tribunal had framed the following issues on 23.08.2018:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Kamla Yadav sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 09.07.2017 at about
08.15 AM, NH-8 Near Village Pachgawan, Haryana caused by the use of vehicle No. DL-12SD-6073 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for R- 2/Insurance Company through video conferencing on CISCO Webex. None has turned up on behalf of R-1 even to address any arguments as it is found on perusal of records that after putting appearance on only one date, he had subsequently stopped appearing in this inquiry. I have also perused the entire material available on record and my issues-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 19. It is well settled 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 that is required in a MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 4 of 19 criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions 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 case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
10. As already discussed above, this claim petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and not under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and the basic distinction between the above two pro- visions is that as per Section 163A of the said Act, the petitioner has only to prove the use of a motor vehicle in an accident, whereas in a claim raised under Section 166 of the said Act, rash or negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle is also required to be proved, though atleast according to the principle of preponderance of probabili- ties.
11. Section 163A of the M.V. Act provides as under :-
163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability"
shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 5 of 19 vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.
12. It is also a settled position now that the remedies for compensation provided in these two provisions by the Legislature are separate and independent remedies and the claimants are well within their rights to opt for any of these two provisions or remedies. Reference on above aspects can be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors., 2007 ACJ 1284 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr., 2017 Law Suit(SC) 1225 etc.
13. Coming to the facts of present case, the petitioner has tendered on record his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A and in the said affidavit, he is found to have specifically deposed regarding the above accident having taken place in the above said manner and also about death of his wife Smt. Kamla caused as a result of injuries suffered in the said accident. Though, admittedly, he is not an eye-witness of the above accident, but as already discussed, an eye-witness's account is not at all required in this inquiry and he certainly a competent person to depose on other aspects being a member of the family of deceased. The petitioner is also found to have tendered on record, inter-alia, the certified copies of postmortem report of his deceased wife and her MLC as Ex.PW1/3 & Ex.PW1/4 respectively and FIR of the above criminal case as Ex.PW1/5. A bare perusal of above FIR shows that the same has been lodged on the day of accident itself on the basis of statement made before police by R-1 himself, who was driving the above said motorcycle and hence, the facts stated therein have to be believed. It clearly shows that at the relevant time of accident, deceased was riding on pillion on MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 6 of 19 the above motorcycle being driven by R-1, when their motorcycle was hit by some unknown container. MLC and postmortem report of deceased also corroborate the case of petitioner regarding death of deceased having been caused as a result of the injuries suffered in a road accident as she was got admitted in the hospital by police officials with history of a road traffic accident. The petitioner is further found to have tendered on record copy one legal notice Ex.PW1/7, along with its postal receipt and track report as Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 respectively, served by him to the SHO of above PS for tracing out the above offending container and contents of this notice also duly corroborate his case as brought before this tribunal.
14. Thus, it is clear from the legal and factual position discussed above that the petitioner has successfully established on record that death of his wife Smt. Kamla was caused as a result of injuries suffered in the above said accident, which took place between the above motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-12SD-6073, which was being driven and owned by R-1 and insured with R-2 at the relevant time of accident, and some unknown container on the above said date, time and place. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
15. ISSUE NO. 2Since the issue no. 1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner, he is certainly entitled to be compensated in the present case in respect to death of his wife Smt. Kamla. However, the quantum of compensation is now required to be decided by this tribunal and also the liability to pay it under the present issue.
Section 163A of the M.V. Act was introduced by Legislature by the Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 and as stated above, it has been incorporated as a special provision for payment of compensation on MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 7 of 19 structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule of the said Act. The accident in this case took place on 09.07.2017 and the above Second Schedule of the Act now stands substituted with a new Schedule by SO No. 2022 w.e.f. 22.05.2018 and as per the new Schedule, a fixed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- is payable in cases of death. Ld. Counsel for R-2/ Insurance Co. has also argued that at the most, the petitioner can be held entitled to the above fixed amount of compensation in case he is able to prove his case on merits.
However, as stated above, the above new Schedule was not in operation when the accident in this case took place and in view of propositions of law laid down in judgment dated 26.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rihana & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 589/2019, which were also reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court in its subsequent common decision dated 08.08.2019 in cases Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dev Karan & Ors., Mala Devi & Ors., Nathi Ram & Ors., Lal Chand & Ors., Sudama Bhagat & Ors., MAC Appeal Nos. 1034/18, 1035/18, 1037/18, 1039/18 & 641/19, the petitioner is entitled to compensation which is higher in amount either under the old Schedule or under the new Schedule.
The petitioner/PW1 in his above affidavit has claimed that at the time of accident, his deceased wife was aged around 45 years and during his cross examination also he has specifically stated about the above age of his wife. It has also been observed that even in FIR Ex.PW1/5 and postmortem report Ex.PW1/3 of the deceased, her age is found recorded as 45 years only. Hence, simply because in MLC Ex.PW1/4 of deceased her age is recorded as 60 years, she cannot be taken to be of this age as the above age in MLC appears to have been recorded on statement of the police official who got her admitted in the MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 8 of 19 hospital and not on the basis of information conveyed or statement made by any family member of the deceased. Hence, since there is nothing on record to suggest that the age of deceased was more than 45 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 13 as given in the Second Schedule is held applicable.
As per Clause 6 (b) of the old Schedule, the income of a spouse in such a case is to be taken as 1/3rd of income of the earning/surviving spouse. However, no evidence at all has been led by petitioner, i.e. the surviving spouse of deceased in this case, to show his income or earnings at the time of accident, though it has come on record that he was in the profession of selling milk of buffaloes and cows. He has also not been cross examined on this aspect by Ld. counsel for R-2/Insurance Co. Hence, on the basis of evidence led on record during the course of this inquiry it is not possible to determine or conclude about the earnings of petitioner or the notional earnings of deceased at the relevant time of accident on basis of the above.
As per the depositions made by petitioner/PW1 in his above affidavit, his wife was though illiterate, but besides looking after all the household chores and taking care of the petitioner and their two sons aged 24 years and 21 years, she was also helping him in milking buffaloes and cows. Though earnings of deceased in the petition have been mentioned as Rs.8,500/- pm only as per the minimum wages, but it has been observed that the same are less than the minimum wages of workers prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time of accident because the minimum wages of an unskilled worker in Delhi were Rs.13,350/- pm at that time. Moreover, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Master Manmeet Singh & Ors., MACA No. 590/2011 decided on 30.01.2012, which has also been followed subsequently by the Hon'ble High Court in MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 9 of 19 the cases of Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MAC App. 721/2013 decided on 21.01.2015 and TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka & Ors. and Dharambir Singh & Ors., 2018 LawSuit (Del) 3635, earnings of a housewife are to be taken akin to the minimum wages of a skilled person and not of an unskilled one and the minimum wages of a skilled person at the relevant time of accident were Rs.16,182/- pm. Thus, the earnings of deceased at the time of accident are being taken as Rs.16,182/- pm and her annual earnings come to Rs.1,94,184/- (Rs.16,182 X 12).
However, since Section 163A and the Second Schedule attached therewith were introduced by the Legislature as special provisions for grant of compensation on structured formula basis, it contains a cap on income of a victim and the maximum income which could be taken as per the said Schedule has been prescribed as Rs. 40,000/- per annum. As already discussed, in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases Rukmani Devi (supra) and Smt. Suman Malhotra & Anr. (supra), this claim petition under Section 163A can still be maintained with the annual income of deceased capped at Rs. 40,000/- per annum, even if the victim had an income of more than that.
Again, though as per the judgment in case Royal Sundaram (supra), there shall not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased, but as per the 'Note' appended to the table of compensation given in the said Schedule, 1/3rd of this amount is liable to be deducted or reduced as personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the judgment in case Royal Sundaram (supra) has not been given in a case under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and specific provisions on this aspect are contained in the above Schedule, 1/3rd of the above earnings of deceased is held deductible towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Further, in view of the subsequent MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 10 of 19 judgment dated 06.11.2017 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maman Singh & Ors., MAC Appeal no. 930/2011, which in turn is based on the propositions of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 31.10.2017 in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the petitioner is also entitled to addition of 25% of the above earnings towards future prospects as the deceased was aged between 40-50 years at the time of accident. Besides the above, in terms of these judgments, the petitioner is also entitled to amounts of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as general damages, i.e. of Rs.70,000/- in total, towards the heads loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively, instead of the amounts of Rs.2,500/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as stated in Clause 3 of the above old Schedule. Again, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, which has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in many cases including the cases of Sangram Pal & Ors. vs. Furkan Ansari & Ors, (2019) 08 DEL CK 0174 decided on 21.08.2019 and in MACA No.747/2019 titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Kaur & Ors. decided on 27.08.2019, the petitioner is also held entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of love & affection', besides the above amount of Rs.70,000/-.
Thus, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled as per the structured formula contained in the above Schedule, as interpreted by certain legal pronouncements, comes to Rs. 5,53,342/- (rounded off) (Rs.40,000/- X 125/100 X 2/3 X 13 + 70,000 + 50,000). As already discussed, the petitioner is entitled to higher amount of compensation as may be calculated as per the old Second Schedule or MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 11 of 19 the new Schedule and hence, he is being awarded the above amount of Rs.5,53,342/- as compensation in this case along with interest from the date of filing of petition till its realization. Hence, this issue stands accordingly decided.
16. ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF In view of above discussion, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.5,53,342/- (Rupees Five Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Two only), along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award given to the petitioner and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
17. RELEASE Out of the award amount granted to petitioner, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account no. 520101266303139 being maintained at Corporation Bank, Rajokri Branch, New Delhi having IFSC Code No. CORP0001384 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into him above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the said petitioner.
To facilitate deposits in the above scheme and disbursement of the awarded amount, petitioner shall also open a savings bank account in the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in his name, if not MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 12 of 19 opened earlier. The above disbursement to him, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from the compensation amount.
The banks shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the above account (s) of petitioner shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
The original fixed deposits be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by said bank to the petitioner.
The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the petitioner.
No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
Petitioner has already produced before this tribunal his original passbook of the above bank account with a separate letter of the Manager concerned regarding non-issuance of ATM cards/cheque books in the said account. He has also filed copies thereof on record along with his aadhar card and PAN card. It is directed that the concerned banks shall not issue any cheque books and/ or ATM cards/debit cards to petitioner in future also. The Bank Manager shall also ensure that all the terms and conditions contained in Form-VIII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as amended and implemented vide the above order dated 07.12.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the above said matter, are complied with.
18. LIABILITY MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 13 of 19 Coming to the question of liability to make payment of the above amount of compensation, as stated above, the plea of R-2/ Insurance Company is that R-1 was driving the above motorcycle at the time of accident without a valid DL. However, the petitioner is found to have tendered on record a copy of DL in name of R-1 issued by a transport authority of Delhi as Mark-A and this DL is shown valid for driving two wheelers as well as LMV NT category of vehicles and it was issued on 20.06.2015 and was valid till 19.06.2035. Though the document was marked only for non production of original thereof, but on the face of it, the document appears to be genuine and can be considered by this tribunal as a part of the evidence in view of the nature and extent of onus of proof placed upon the petitioner, as per the legal position already discussed under issued no.1. Moreover, R-2/Insurance Co. has failed to show that the above document was a false or fabricated one and it has also not taken any steps to summon the records of concerned transport authority to challenge the said document. Hence, though liability of both the respondents is otherwise held joint and several and they are held liable to pay the awarded compensation amount along with interest to the petitioner, but R-2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above awarded amount of compensation as they had failed to prove any violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of R-1. Therefore, R-2/Insurance Co. shall deposit the above award amount with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-2 fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 14 of 19 Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the insurance company with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
R-2 shall inform the petitioner through registered post that the cheque/DD of the awarded amount is being deposited so as to facilitate him to collect his cheque/DD.
19. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
20. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
21. The particulars of Form-V 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 09.07.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by Not given I.O. to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by Not given I.O. to the Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report u/s.173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Not given Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report (DAR) by IO before Claims Outstation matter Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on
-do-
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on
-do-
claimant(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all
-do-
respects?
MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 15 of 199. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR -do-
10. Whether the police has verified the
-do-
documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the
-do-
Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of Not given Insurance Co.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted Outstation matter his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Legal offer not given Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance -do-
Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of the offer of the Insurance -do-
Company.
18. Date of the award 17.09.2020
19. Whether the award was passed No with the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 22.02.2018 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 MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 16 of 19 book/debit card to claimants and make an endorsement to this effect on passbooks.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the 05.03.2020 place of their residence alongwith endorsement, PAN & Adhaar Cards?
23. Permanent Residential Address of Near Holy Chowk, the Claimant(s) Rajokri, New Delhi
24. Details of savings bank account (s) Account no. 520101266303139 of the claimant(s) and the address being maintained at of the bank with IFSC Code. Corporation Bank, Rajokri Branch, New Delhi having IFSC Code No. CORP0001384
25. Whether the claimant (s) savings bank account (s) is near his place Yes of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of Yes the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
22. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 23.12.2020.
Announced in the open court. (M.K. Nagpal) on 17.09.2020 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 17 of 19 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IV-A
1. Date of accident : 09.07.2017
2. Name of the deceased : Smt. Kamla
3. Age of the deceased : around 45 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Housewife
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 40,000/- per annum
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Rambir Yadav 53 years Husband
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Amount Awarded
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.40,000/- pa, as per
structured formula
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.10,000/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of Rs. 16,666/-
the deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency NA
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of dependency NA
(D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 13
13 Total loss of dependency (D Rs.4,33,342/-
x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of Rs.50,000/-
love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of Rs.40,000/-
consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/-
estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,53,342/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 18 of 19
20 RATE OF INTEREST 9% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED petition till deposit in 30 days
and 12% thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs.1,39,442/-
of award (M)
22 Total amount including interest Rs.6,92,784/- rounded off to (L+M) Rs.6,93,000/-
23 Award amount released 10% of the awarded amount 24 Award amount kept in FDRs 90% of awarded amount 25 Mode of disbursement of the Through bank award amount to claimant(s) 26 Next date for compliance of the 23.12.2020 award (M.K.Nagpal) PO/MACT, New Delhi 17.09.2020 MACP No. 283/17 Page No. 19 of 19