Delhi District Court
Dropa vs Lokender Singh on 1 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
DROPA & ANR. VS. LOKENDER SINGH & ANR.
MACP No. 91/18
1. Smt. Dropa (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Ram Prasad
2. Sh. Ram Prasad (Father of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram
Both permanent resident of 214, Rampur Bhud,
Tehsil Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-244241.
Presently residing at :-
C/o Sh. Rajinder,
S/o Sh. Ramesh,
R/o H.No. S-265/260, Indra Gandhi Camp,
Taimur Nagar, Pahari No. 2, New Delhi-110025.
...... Petitioners being LRs of deceased
Sh. Rokee
Versus
1. Sh. Lokender Singh (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o H.No. 15, Mohalla Kavi Nagar,
Atarpura Gajraola, PS Gajraula,
District Amroha (J.P. Nagar), U.P.
2. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at 101-106, BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
.........Respondents
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 1 of 21
Date of filing of claim petition : 03.05.2018 Date of framing of issues : 28.09.2018 Date of concluding arguments : 22.01.2024 Date of decision : 01.02.2024 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Rokee in a motor accident that took place on 25.06.2016, at Gajroula, District Hasanpur, JP Nagar, U.P. regarding which one FIR/crime No.253/16, under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC was registered at PS Hasanpur. The vehicle involved in this case is a Bolero car bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 (R-1) and insured with respondent no. 2 (R-2).
2. As per record, the petitioners are mother and father of the deceased. Succinctly put, facts of case are that on the above said date, the deceased was going towards his home by his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SBC-3005 after seeing off his relatives, and when he reached near Hasanpur Gajroula Road, all of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 on wrong side with high speed and rash and negligent manner, came from Hasanpur to Gajroula and hit the motorcycle of deceased with great force due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to Govt. Hospital, Hasanpur, U.P. by the police where his postmortem was conducted, but he died on the way to hospital.
3. Respondent no. 1 has filed his written statement to the claim MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 2 of 21 petition wherein it is stated that he was holding a valid driving license at the relevant time of accident. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident.
4. Respondent no. 2/Insurance Company has filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner, driver and insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-23J-0929 is also a necessary party in the present matter. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 20.01.2016 to 19.01.2017, however, the liability of the company is stated to be subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. It is pertinent to mention that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of Insurance Company seeking amendment in their written statement was allowed vide order dated 17.03.2021 and amended written statement on behalf of Insurance Company was taken on record.
6. Respondent no. 2/Insurance Company in their amended written statement came up with an additional defence that as per the eye witness, on the statement of whom FIR was lodged, the registration number of offending vehicle was UP-27L-9083 instead of UP-23J-0929 and the same was driven by Rajeev Gurjar who has not been impleaded in the petition. It is stated that for the said reason, the present claim petition is not maintainable.
7. On 28.09.2018, the following issues were framed by this tribunal as:-
1. Whether the deceased Rokee sustained fatal injuries in accident which occurred on 25.06.2016, time not known, at Gajroula Hasanpur District, JP Nagar, MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 3 of 21 Uttar Pardesh, caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-23L-9083 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP
3.Relief.
8. However, vide order dated 17.03.2021, an additional issue was also framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal in view of amendment carried out in the written statement by the Insurance Company and the same reads as under :-
Whether the accident occurred with vehicle bearing No. UP-23K-3433 and the same was being driven by one Rajiv Gurjar and therefore, the present claim petition is false ? OPR2.
9. The Tribunal has heard the arguments advanced by Mohd. Rafi, Ld. Counsel for claimants, Sh. Pankaj Kumar Dewal, Ld. Counsel for R-1/driver cum owner and Sh. M.Z. Iqbal, Ld. Counsel for R-2/Insurance Company and has perused the entire case record.
10. The finding on the aforesaid issues is recorded hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs:
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased Rokee sustained fatal injuries in accident which occurred on 25.06.2016, time not known, at Gajroula Hasanpur District, JP Nagar, Uttar Pardesh, caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-23L-9083 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP.MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 4 of 21
Additional Issue Whether the accident occurred with vehicle bearing No. UP-23K-3433 and the same was being driven by one Rajiv Gurjar and therefore, the present claim petition is false ? OPR2.
11. Considering the fact that a common evidence has been led on issue no. 1 and the additional issue framed by this Tribunal on 17.03.2021, both the said issues have been taken together.
12. Onus to prove the issue no. 1 was upon the petitioners and onus to prove the additional issue was put on the Insurance Company.
13. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Sh. Vijay, S/o Sh. Jayram, an eye witness of the accident as PW1. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and he also tendered the certified copies of criminal case record as Ex. PW1/2 (colly). During cross examination, he deposed that the deceased was his real nephew and he was not riding as pillion with the deceased on his motorcycle. He further deposed that he had seen the accident when he was waiting for some conveyance at Gajrola, Hasanpur Road. As per his version, some person from the public had informed the police and the police reached at the spot and inquired from him about the said accident. He further deposed that the accident took place between motorcycle of deceased and a Bolero car and the driver of Bolero car was also apprehended at the spot itself. He deposed that he had seen the registration number of offending vehicle which was UP-23-9083.
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 5 of 2114. In order to prove the additional issue, the Insurance Company has examined the IO/SI Sh. Dinesh Malik @ Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar as R3W1, who had investigated the FIR of the present accident. He deposed that he was not present at the time of accident. He further deposed that the FIR Ex. PW1/2 was lodged through a complaint made by one Sh. Anil Kumar, uncle/chacha of deceased. As per the version of R3W1, the deceased Rokee had come to Hasanpur towards Gajroula Road to see off his relatives by a motorcycle Passion Pro and a Bolero car coming from Hasanpur side to Gajraula had hit the motorcycle of deceased. The witness was shown the FIR wherein it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was bearing registration No. UP-23K-3433 and was driven rashly and negligently driven by one Rajiv Gujjar, to which the witness deposed that the correct number of the offending vehicle was found to be UP-23L-9083, which was being driven by Sh. Lokender as per his investigation conducted in the present matter.
15. During cross examination, he admitted that the accused Lokender was arrested on 29.06.2016 vide arrest memo Ex. R3W1/1 and he was released on bail by the concerned court. He deposed that he had obtained the GPS of the offending vehicle, as per which, the location of the offending vehicle was found at the spot of accident and the report of GPS is Ex. R3W1/3 (colly). He also took the photographs of the offending vehicle which were placed on record as Ex. R3W1/4. He further deposed that the GD entry of 28.06.2016 Ex. R3W1/5 reflects that he had taken the custody of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083 and the same was handed over to the Mal Khana, PS Hasanpur. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was released on 06.07.2016 on superdari to Sh. Lokender, who is owner of the offending vehicle.
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 6 of 2116. It is a matter of record that in the FIR, the number of offending vehicle was mentioned as UP-23K-3433 and the FIR was lodged at the instance of one Anil Kumar, uncle of deceased. In the FIR, the name of driver of the offending vehicle is mentioned as Sh. Rajiv Gujjar, who is alleged to have struck against the motorcycle of deceased while driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
17. Perusal of chargesheet Ex. PW1/2 (colly) shows that both the informant of the offence namely Sh. Anil Kumar as well as Sh. Vijay, who has been examined by the petitioners as an eye witness of the accident, have been cited as witnesses by the IO in the chargesheet. As per version of PW2, he was the eye witness of the accident and present at the spot of accident. He deposed that on 25.06.2016, he was waiting for some conveyance near the spot of accident and the accident had occurred in his presence when the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SBC-3005 was suddenly hit by Bolero car bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083 coming from Hasanpur to Gajrola from wrong side at a high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. In cross examination, he further deposed that he had seen the registration number of Bolero car and it was UP-23L- 9083. In the cross examination, the only suggestion put to the witness was to the effect that he was not present at the time of accident and deposing falsely being real uncle of the deceased, but there is no suggestion to the effect that the accident was caused by some other vehicle and not by the offending vehicle.
18. In view of the fact that even the IO has cited the said PW1 as an eye witness in the chargesheet, the presence of said witness at the spot of accident cannot be doubted.
19. Furthermore, in the cross examination, IO has reiterated the MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 7 of 21 fact that after investigation, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-23L-9083 was found to be involved in the accident and he has placed on record trip history record of the offending vehicle as Ex. R3W1/3, as per which, at the relevant time of accident, the location of the vehicle is shown to be near the spot of accident.
20. Although, there are some unexplained discrepancies existing on record in the light of the version of PW1, as per whom, after the accident, the offending vehicle was stopped at some distance and its driver was also apprehended by the public persons and further the police also reached at the spot sometime thereafter. Whereas, as per chargesheet, the accused was arrested on 29.06.2016 i.e. after four days of accident. But said discrepancy itself cannot be a ground to doubt the very involvement of the offending vehicle and reject the claim petition on this count only. Especially, when the IO of the FIR of said accident after investigating the matter, has charge-sheeted the driver/R-1 for causing the death of deceased by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. For the purpose of a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the charge-sheet of the criminal case itself is sufficient proof of the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence on the part of its driver.
21. In this regard, I may refer to cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it was held that for the purposes of claim under M.V.Act, mere filing of the certified copies of the chargesheet of the criminal case for rash and negligent driving is sufficient proof for showing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 8 of 21"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
22. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
23. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 9 of 21 AD (Delhi) 310.
24. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 530, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to for the claimants and the claimants were required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
25. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-23L-9083, which was being driven and owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, both the issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
26. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 10 of 21 are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(I) Loss of dependency
27. The petitioner no. 1/mother of deceased has stepped into the witness as PW2 who tendered her evidence by way of her affidavit Ex. PW2/A wherein she deposed that he was doing private work and earning Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month approx. During her cross examination, she admitted that she has not placed on record any documentary proof regarding employment and education of her deceased son. She further admitted that she has not filed any residential document of Delhi.
28. Since the profession, income and educational qualification documents of deceased has not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled worker is taken into account as per rates prevalent in U.P, which was Rs. 7,108/- (rounded off) per month at the time of accident.
29. PW2 in her affidavit has claimed that her deceased son was aged about 22 years on the date of accident. In order to prove the age of her deceased son, she has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card her deceased son as Ex.PW2/3 in which the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 01.01.1994. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased on the date of accident, i.e. 25.06.2016 was 22 years, 5 months and 24 days. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by a Constitution MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 11 of 21 Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the multiplier of '18' is applicable in the present case.
30. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by parents of deceased. PW2 during her cross examination has admitted that her deceased son was unmarried at the time of accident. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), half of earning of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
31. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to 40% addition of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was aged below 40 years at the relevant time of accident. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case is calculated to be Rs.10,74,730/- (rounded off) (Rs.7,108/- X 12 X 50/100 X 18 X 140/100).
(II) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
32. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 12 of 21 Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
33. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,33,100/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 2 = Rs.96,800/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
34. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,07,830/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty only) (Rs.10,74,730/- + Rs. 1,33,100/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 13 of 21APPORTIONMENT
35. Out of the awarded amount, 60% share is being awarded to the petitioner no. 1, i.e. mother of deceased and the remaining 40% share is being awarded to petitioner no. 2, i.e. father of deceased.
RELEASE
36. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per 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 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 34861363869, having IFSC Code SBIN0000650 and PAN Card No. FWUPD4378H, being maintained with State Bank of India, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Hasanpur and the remaining 10% amount is directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
37. Out of share of petitioner no. 2, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 14 of 21 months in succession, as per 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 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 004210550011350, having IFSC Code ICIC00MORAD and PAN Card No. FKBPP1872F, being maintained with Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Moradabad, Hasanpur, U.P. and the remaining 10% amount is directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
38. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
39. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank accounts of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
40. The original fixed deposits shall 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 the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
41. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank accounts of the petitioners near the place MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 15 of 21 of their residence.
42. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
44. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
45. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
46. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
47. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that there is no statutory defence available with the Insurance Company.
48. In view of foregoing discussions, all the respondents are MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 16 of 21 though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no.2 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
49. The respondent no. 2 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
50. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of 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.
51. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
52. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 17 of 211. Date of the accident 25.06.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not given Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not given victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not given Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not given owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Not given Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Not given Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed NA as it is an outstation Accident Report (DAR) matter.
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Legal offer not filed of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 01.02.2024
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 18 of 21
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank 03.05.2018 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 effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Already furnished produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Mentioned above petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
53. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 06.05.2024.
Digitally signed by SUNENA SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.02.01
16:17:40 +0530
Announced in the open court. (Sunena Sharma)
on 01.02.2024 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 19 of 21 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 25.06.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Rokee
3. Age of the deceased : 22 years, 5 months and 24 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Minimum wages of unskilled worker in U.P.
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.7,108/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Dropa 49 years Mother
(ii) Sh. Ram Prasad 51 years Father
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased (A) Rs.7,108/-
8 Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.2,843.2
9 Less-Personal expenses Rs.4,975.6
of the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.4,975.6
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of Rs.59,707.2
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 18
13 Total loss of dependency Rs.10,74,730/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 20 of 21
15 Compensation for loss Nil
of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss Rs.96,800/-
of consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss Rs.18,150/-
of estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.18,150/-
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.12,07,830/-
COMPENSATION
(F + G + H + I + J+K
=L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED claim petition till the date of
award to be deposited within 30
days and 9% thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to the Rs.5,20,625/-
date of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs.17,28,455/- (rounded off to interest (L+M) Rs. 17,28,500/-) 23 Award amount released P-1 = 10% of her share P-2 = 10% of his share 24 Award amount kept in P-1 = 90% of her share FDRs/ MACAD P-2 = 90% of his share 25 Mode of disbursement of Through bank the award amount to petitioner(s) 26 Next date for compliance of 06.05.2024 the award Digitally signed SUNENA by SUNENA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.02.01 16:17:29 +0530 (SUNENA SHARMA) PO/MACT, New Delhi 01.02.2024 MACP No. 91/18 Page No. 21 of 21