Delhi District Court
Mact No. 199/17 Angrej Singh vs . Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. ... on 25 November, 2021
DLCT010026152017
Presented on : 21022017
Registered on : 21022017
Decided on : 25112021
Duration : 04 Years 09 Months
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICERMACT02, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 199/17
1. Sh. Angrej Singh
S/o late Sh. Mahima Singh
2. Sh. Jagmal Singh
S/o late Sh. Phool Singh
3. Meva Singh
S/o late Sh. Phool Singh
4. Sh. Arjun Singh
S/o late Sh. Phool Singh
5. Sh. Surjan Singh
S/o late Sh. Phool Singh
All above R/o Village Sarwan Majra,
Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
6. Smt. Kelavati LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25
16:08:33
+0530
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 1/45
W/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o Ward No. 2, Village Khajuri,
Banidi Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
7. Smt. Bala Devi
W/o Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o Shadipur Shahidan Sirsala,
Pihowa, Kurukshetra, Haryan.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Bansh Raj Yadav,
R/o Jaman Ptti Singraman Jainpur, U.P.
2. M/s Vijay Bharat Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
At 54, Bata Railway Crossing, Distt. Faridabad,
Haryana.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
At SC1 and 2, B.P. Railway Road,
Neelam Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana.
.......Respondents.
The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi Digitally signed High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under: LOVLEEN by LOVLEEN Date: 2021.11.25 16:08:48 +0530
1. Date of the accident 17.10.2016 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 2/45
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.10.2016 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the 21.02.2017 Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. 15.11.2018 P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 21.02.2017 Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 21.02.2017 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the petitioner (s). 21.02.2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes Digitally signed by LOVLEEN filed with DAR? LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:09:21 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 3/45
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not Mentioned 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.
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 01.12.2017 of the Insurance Company.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:09:35 +0530MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 4/45
18. Date of the award 25.11.2021
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?
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were 05.02.2020 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 effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the petitioner(s) produced the 11.02.2020 & passbook of their savings bank account near the 25.11.2021 place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Village petitioner(s). Sarwan Majra, Distt. Karnal, Haryana.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:09:44 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 5/45
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c no. of petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with petitioner no. 1 :
IFSC Code. 3903767948,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622;
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 2 :
2353607372,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 3 :
2353593196,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622.
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 4 :
2353538612,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
Digitally signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date: 2021.11.25
16:10:07 +0530
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 6/45
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622.
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 5 :
2353539831,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622.
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 6 :
48240001000719
64, Punjab
National bank,
Branch : Radaur,
Haryana, IFSC :
PUNB0482400.
A/c no. of
petitioner no. 7 :
3228466552,
Central Bank of
India, Branch
Bhadson Karnal,
HR; IFSC :
CBIN0282622
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25
16:10:16
+0530
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 7/45
25. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account Yes
(s) in near his place of residence?
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/transferred.
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A DAR was filed on 21/02/2017 before my Ld. Predecessor in the presence of all the parties to this case. The DAR was prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 17/10/2016 at 4:00 AM on the road situated near FCI Godown, Roop Nagar, Delhi, at a spot adjoining Tikona Park in which one Balwan S/o Sh. Phool Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Deceased") lost his life. At the relevant time, the deceased, who was working as a driver on the Truck bearing registration no. HR45B 1111, was sleeping on the road after putting up a mattress just besides his own truck. Suddenly, a truck bearing registration no. HR55H2805 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.11.25 16:10:29 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 8/45 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") was reversed by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the said truck ran over the deceased while he was sleeping. Driver of the offending vehicle was appehended at the spot by a public person namely Gurdeep Singh and was then handed over to the police. An FIR no. 325/2016 PS Roop Nagar was also registered at the instance of said public person namely Gurdeep Singh. After due investigation, a chargesheet U/s 279/304A IPC was prepared against the driver of the offending vehicle. R1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R 2 is also the owner of the offending vehicle. R3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. My Ld. Predecessor directed R3/insurance company to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R1 and R2 were also directed to file their Written Statements. Petitioners were also directed to file the statement of facts in the prescribed Form G.
2. R1 and R2 filed a joint reply/ written statement to the DAR wherein they took preliminary objections to the effect that the DAR filed by the police is false and fabricated as the offending vehicle was not involved in any accident and hence the same is not maintainable; that R1 and R2 have been made a scape goat by the police and that the liability, if any, in respect of the accident, is to be borne by R3 as the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy at the time of accident; and that the offending vehicle was having a valid permit and fitness certificate also. On merits, R1 and R2 have denied the contents of DAR but have stated at one place that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased himself.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:10:37 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 9/45
3. R3/Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself as on the date of accident but R3/ Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability on the ground that none of the petitioners are Class1 legal heirs of the deceased, nor are any of the petitioners dependent on the deceased.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 01/12/2017, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Balwan suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 17/10/2016 at about 4 AM involving TRUCK bearing registration No. HR55H2805 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/ petitioners is/are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:10:46 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 10/45 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE 5.1 The petitioner no. 1 Angrej Singh examined himself as PW1 in support of petitioner's claim. The said petitioner filed an affidavit Ex PW1/A wherein he stated :
(i) that he (PW1) is the real nephew of the deceased who died in a motor vehicular accident on 17/02/2016;
(ii) that at the time of his death, the deceased was 50 years old, was working as a Truck Driver and was earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/ per month;
(iii) that the deceased used to reside with PW1 and used to hand over his entire income to PW1 for household expenses;
(iv) that he (PW1) spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/ on the transportation and cremation of the deceased;
(v) that the deceased has left behind following legal heirs : "(a) Sh. Angrej Singh S/o late Sh. Mahima Singh (Nephew);
(b) Sh. Jagmal Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(c) Sh. Meva Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(d) Sh. Arjun Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(e) Sh. Surjan Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(f) Smt. Kelavati W/o Sh. Sohan Lal (Sister); and
(g) Smt. Bala Devi W/o Sh. Gulab Singh (Sister)."
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:10:55 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 11/45
(vi) that the parents of the deceased had already expired before his (deceased's) death;
5.2 PW1 seeks a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/ for the untimely death of the deceased. He has relied upon following documents in support of his claim : Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 1(OSR);
Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of election I card of deceased (OSR);
Ex. PW1/3 is the DAR;
Mark A is the copy of LIC of Balwan Singh & Mark B (06 pages) are the copies of election I card of Jagmal Singh & copies of aadhar cards of Meva Singh, Arjun Singh, Surjan Singh, Kelavati and Bala Devi.
PW1 was crossexamined on behalf of all the respondents.
5.3 PW2 Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Inderjeet, R/o H. No. 5, Gali No. 1, Vikas Colony, Near Anmol Garden, Karnal, Haryana is the eye Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:11:05 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 12/45 witness of this case. PW2 has placed on record his affidavit Ex. PW2/A wherein he has deposed about the occurrence of events as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. PW2 has clearly and categorically stated that the deceased lost his life when the offending vehicle driven by R1 ran over him (deceased).
PW2 was crossexamined on behalf of all the respondents.
5.4 PW3 Sh. Meva Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh R/o Village Sarwan Majra, Distt. Karnal, Haryana is the real brother of the deceased. He has placed on record his affidavit Ex. PW3/A wherein he has stated that apart from himself, the deceased left behind following legal heirs :
(i) Sh. Jagmal Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(ii) Sh. Arjun Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(iii) Sh. Surjan Singh S/o late Sh. Phool Singh (Brother);
(iv) Smt. Kelavati W/o Sh. Sohan Lal (Sister); and
(v) Smt. Bala Devi W/o Sh. Gulab Singh (Sister).
5.5 PW3 further deposed that the father of petitioner/ PW1 Angrej Singh has expired long back and the deceased brought him up. He further deposed that the deceased was unmarried and contributed his whole income mainly to the family of petitioner/ PW1 Angrej Singh. He also deposed that Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:11:14 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 13/45 the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month.
5.6 PW3 was not crossexamined by R1 and R2. PW3 was crossexamined in brief on behalf of R3 only.
5.7 Ld. Counsel for petitioners closed petitioners' evidence on 15/10/2019.
5.8 No evidence was led in defence by either of the respondents.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS
6. Petitioner as well as R3 have filed their respective written submissions. Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 submitted orally that the driving licence of R1 and insurance policy of the offending vehicle were valid at the time of accident and therefore he does not want to address any argument.
7. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Balwan suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 17/10/2016 at about 4 AM involving TRUCK bearing registration No. HR55H2805 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:11:26 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 14/45
8. 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 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.
9. As already discussed above, the petitioners have examined PW
2 Sh. Gurdeep Singh as an eye witness of the accident. PW2 has clearly and categorically deposed that the accident in which the deceased lost his life took place in his presence and sight. He has deposed that the offending vehicle was reversed by R1 in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased, who was sleeping on the road, was run over in the process. PW2 was subjected to a brief crossexamination by the respondents, but PW2 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:11:36 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 15/45 seems to have withstood the test of crossexamination. He has not betrayed any sign of falsity or untruth. This Tribunal does not find any reason to disbelieve and discard the oral testimony of PW2 Sh. Gurdeep Singh with respect to the factual occurrence.
10. Besides the above, R1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
11. The very fact that R1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW2 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of offending vehicle, MLC, Seizure Memos, Arrest Memo of R1 also corroborate the oral testimony of PW2.
12. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the deceased was run over by the offending vehicle being driven by R1 at the relevant time.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:11:45 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 16/45
13. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. The offending vehicle) ran over the deceased at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any negligent/sudden movement on the part of petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R1 in driving/reversing the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal is constrained to hold R 1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the medical records/treatment documents placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of deceased on account of injuries sustained in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:11:54 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 17/45 ISSUE NO. 2
2. Whether the petitioner/ petitioners is/are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
17. Assessment of compensation under this head is for the benefit of the dependants left behind by the deceased. The relevant principles in this regard have been evolved by judicial dicta and observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 are the law governing the field. The dictum of Sarla Verma (Supra) has been followed consistently since long and the same have been reaffirmed in a latest judgment titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:12:04 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 18/45 Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur & Ors., MANU/SC/0500/2020, wherein at para 8(a)certain general principles have been set out regarding the entitlements of dependants towards 'loss of dependency' and it has been observed interalia that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be dependants, because they would usually either be independent and earning or married or dependant on the father. It has been further observed that even if the deceased was survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant. An exception has been carved out to the general principles mentioned above for the cases where the family of the bachelor was large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he had a widowed mother and a large number of younger nonearnings sisters or brothers, but the said exception is not applicable in the present case and hence we have to go only by the general principles referred to above.
18. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioners happen to be close relatives of deceased. Petitioner no. 1 is the nephew (son of a predeceased brother) of the deceased and petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are real brothers and sisters of the deceased. It is apparent that none of the petitioners are ClassI legal heirs of the deceased. Although, petitioner no. 1 Angrej Singh claims that he was dependant upon the deceased and; that the deceased used to contribute whole of his income to his (petitioner no. 1's) household, however, the said fact, even if taken to be a gospels truth, does not constitute petitioner no. 1 as a "dependant" Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:12:19 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 19/45 as referred to in Sarla Verma (supra) and Satinder Kaur & Ors. (supra). Reason being the fact that the contribution, if any, was not being made in discharge of any legal duties towards any dependant family member, which duties seem to be the primary reason for the evolution of the concept of grant of compensation towards 'loss of dependency'. The said duties extend to only to the relatives defined as dependants in Section 21 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as far as any 'Hindu' is concerned. Admittedly, the deceased was a Hindu by religion and none of the petitioners herein fall in the category of 'Dependants' defined in Section 21 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. There is no plausible reason for this Tribunal to go beyond the said definition of 'dependants' while disposing of the present proceedings. So, even if the deceased was contributing his income towards the household expenses of petitioner no. 1, the said contribution has to be necessarily held to be nothing more than a gratuitous help to a close relative. In the absence of any adoption deed in favour of petitioner no. 1, by no stretch of imagination could the petitioner no. 1 be treated as "family" of the deceased for the purpose of assuming any loss of dependency on account of the untimely and unfortunate death of deceased due to a motor vehicular accident. This observation would subsist even in the face of 'nomination' of petitioner no.1 as a beneficiary to a life insurance policy owned by the deceased, as the said nomination would only demonstrate the closeness and affection of parties towards each other and would never be sufficient to presume that petitioner no. 1 is a Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:12:28 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 20/45 dependant of the deceased. In fact, the copy of ration card of petitioner no. 1, annexed with the DAR, fortifies the above observation, as name of the deceased does not figure in the same for reasons unknown and unexplained. As such, petitioner no. 1 could not be granted any compensation under this head as he was not a dependant of the deceased. Admittedly, rest of the petitioners, who are brothers and sisters of the deceased, were already married and independent as on the date of demise of the deceased, therefore, none of them could be treated as a dependant of the deceased. In the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal holds that no compensation is admissible to either of the petitioners under the head "Loss of Dependency".
COMPENSATION UNDER NONPECUNIARY HEADS
19. Having ruled that none of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency, this Tribunal is left with the task to assess whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under the nonpecuniary heads. In this regard, it could be observed at the very outset that none of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under the head "loss of consortium" as the latest pronouncement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satinder Kaur & Ors. (supra) does not make any provision for a nephew or brothers or sisters of any deceased. Since, petitioner no. 1 has claimed in his affidavit that he spent a sum of Rs.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:12:37 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 21/45 50,000/ on the cremation and other religious rites, including transportation of dead body of deceased, therefore, petitioner no. 1 is granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/ under the head "funeral expenses".
20. Now the last head of compensation which remains is the "Loss of Estate". In this regard, it may be noted here that the petitioners as well as the insurance company both have relied upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC. APP. No. 601/2007, decided on 15.01.2010, while seeking a decision on merits. It would be appropriate to mention here that the following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith Rowe (supra) at para no. 9 as under : "9. The appellant was not financially dependent upon the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the compensation for loss of de pendency. However, the appellant is entitled to the loss of estate. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Ors., I(2005) ACC 304/ 2005 ACJ 1992, wherein it was held as under: "8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration:
(i)What are the principles for determining compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?"
"12. In GOBALD MOTOR SERVICE v. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI, MANU/SC/0016/1961 :
[1962]1SCR929 referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act (Sections 1A and 2 after 1951 amendment to the said Act), the Supreme Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:12:47 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 22/45 Court pointed out the difference between damages recoverable under the said two Sections. It was held that while under Section 1 (new Section 1A) damages are recoverable for the benefit of the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2, compensation goes to the benefit of the estate;
whereas under Section 1, damages are payable in respect of loss sustained by the persons mentioned therein, under Section 2 damages can be claimed inter alia for loss of expectation of life and loss to the estate. The Supreme Court held that persons who claim benefit under Section 1 and 2 need not be the same as the claims under the said two Sections are based upon different causes of action. The Supreme Court held:
"The principle in its application to the Indian Act has been clearly and succinctly stated by a division bench of the Lahore High Court in SECRETARY OF STATE v. GOKAL CHAND (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sri SHADILAL CJ observed thus:
"The law contemplates two sorts of damages: the one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident; the other is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The action for the latter is brought by the legal representatives, not for the estate, but as trustees for the relatives beneficially entitled; while the damages for the loss caused to the estate are claimed on behalf of the estate and when recovered from part of the assets of the estate.
An illustration may clarify the position X is the income of the estate of the deceased, Y is the yearly expenditure incurred by him on his dependants (we will ignore the other expenditure incurred by him). XY, i.e., Z is the amount he saves every year. The capitalised value of the income spend on the dependants, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family though his death. The capitalised value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. If the claimants under both the heads are the same, and if they get compensation for the entire loss caused to the estate, they cannot claim again under the head of personal loss the capitalised income that might have been spent on them if the deceased were alive. Conversely, if they got compensation under Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2021.11.25 16:12:56 +0530
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 23/45 Section 1, representing the amount that the deceased would have spent on them, if alive, to that extent there should be deduction in their claim under Section 2 of the Act in respect of compensation for the loss caused to the estate. To put it differently, if under Section 1 they got capitalised value of Y; under Section 2 they could get only the capitalised value of Z, for the capitalised value of Y+Z, i.e., X, would be the capitalised value of his entire income."
"The rights of action under Section 1 and 2 of the Act are quite distinct and independent. If a person taking benefit under both the Sections is the same, he cannot be permitted to recover twice over for the same loss. In awarding damages under both the heads, there shall not be duplication of the same claim, that is, if any part of the compensation representing the loss to the estate goes into the calculation of personal loss under Section 1 of the Act, the portion shall be excluded in giving compensation under Section 2 and vice versa."...
"15. Where a breadwinner dies and his wife, children and parents, who are normally depending on the deceased, claim compensation, the method of computation is now standardized. The Court first finds out the income of the deceased, then estimates how much he would have spent for himself (for his personal and living expenses). The balance is taken as the contribution to the dependents (family). The said estimate of the amount contributed to the family per year, which is the annual dependency, becomes the basis for arriving at the compensation. It is converted into a lump sum by multiplying it by the number of years during which he would have contributed to the family (duly scaled down to take several uncertainties into account). Thus, the annual dependency becomes the multiplicand and the number of years' purchase becomes the multiplier. As it is well settled that there cannot be a duplication of award under Sections 1A and 2 of the FA Act, where the main head for award of compensation is loss of dependency, the Courts will not duplicate the award under the head of loss of estate. Instead a conventional sum (Say Rs. 10,000/) is awarded under the head of loss of estate, where the income has already been taken note of under the head of loss of dependency. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:13:06 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 24/45
16. But, what would be the position if the claimant, though a legal heir is not a dependant of the deceased? Obviously, the question of awarding any amount under the head of loss of dependency would not arise, as there was no financial dependency. In fact in this case, the deceased was not even managing the 'house hold' as is normally done by a housewife as the husband and wife were living in different places due to exigencies of service and the couple had no children. In such a case, the main head of compensation will be loss to estate under Section 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. The claim petition becomes one on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation received becomes part of the assets of the estate. Consequently what is to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency under Section 1A would be nil, as there is no real pecuniary loss to the members of the family.
17. In GAMMELL v. WILSON, 1981(1) ALL ER. 578 the House of Lords held that in addition to the conventional and moderate damages for loss of expectation of life, damages for loss to the estate should include damages for loss of earnings of the lost years. The annual loss to the estate was computed to be the amount that the deceased would have been able to save after meeting the cost of his living and damages for loss to the estate were computed after applying a suitable multiplier to the annual loss. GAMMEL was relied on in SUSAMMA THOMAS (Supra) and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in RAMESH CHANDRA v. M.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 1983 ACC. C.J 221".
18. In MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SUDHAKAR, 1977 ACJ 290 the Supreme Court considered a case where an employed husband claimed compensation in regard to the death of his wife who was employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/ to Rs. 250/. The Supreme Court observed:
"We find it difficult to agree that only half of that amount would have been sufficient for her monthly expenses till she retired from service, so that the remaining half may be taken as the measure of her husband's Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2021.11.25 16:13:14 +0530
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 25/45 monthly loss. It is not impossible that she would have contributed half of her salary to the household, but then it is reasonable to suppose that the husband who was employed at slightly higher salary would have contributed his share to the common pool which would have been utilised for the lodging and boarding of both of them. We do not therefore think it is correct to assume that the husband's loss amounted to half the monthly salary the deceased was likely to draw until she retired. If on an average she contributed Rs. 100/ every month to the common pool, then his loss would be roughly not more than Rs. 50/per month."
19. We may summarise the principles enunciated, thus:
(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependant members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the dependants beneficially entitled. In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed (Note: for example, if the dependants of a deceased Hindu are a widow aged 35 years and mother aged 75 years, irrespective of the fact that they succeed equally under Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal may award a larger share to the widow and a smaller share to the mother, as the widow is likely to live longer). But in the second category of cases, no such adjustments or alternation of shares is permissible and the entire amount has to be awarded to the benefit of the estate. Even if the Tribunal wants to specify the sharing of the compensation amount, it may have to divide the amount strictly in accordance with the personal law governing succession, as the amount Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:13:23 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 26/45 awarded and recovered forms part of the estate of the deceased.
(i) Where the claim is by the dependants, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(i) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.
A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(i) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.
20. The following illustrations with reference to the case of a deceased who was aged 40 years with a monthly income of Rs. 9000/ will bring out the difference between cases where claimants are dependents and cases were claimants are not dependents.
(i)If the family of the deceased consists of a dependant wife and child, normally one third will be deducted towards the personal and living Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:13:32 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 27/45 expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs. 6000/ per month (or Rs. 72000/ per annum) will be treated as contribution to the dependent family. The loss of dependency will be arrived by applying a multiplier of 14. The loss of dependency will be Rs. 10,08,000/ plus Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of Estate.
(i) If the family of the deceased was larger, say consisting of dependent parents, wife and two children, necessarily the deceased would spend more on his family and the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased will H.R.ink to onefifth instead of onethird (Note: In Gulam Khader v. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., ILR 2000 Kar 4416 details of this illustration have been given). Therefore the deduction toward personal and living expense would be Rs. 1800/ per month (onefifth of Rs. 9000/) and contribution to the family would be Rs. 7200/ per month or Rs. 86,400/ per annum. Thus loss of dependency will be Rs. 12,09,600/ (by applying the multiplier of 14).
The award under the head of loss of estate would be Rs. 10000/.
(i) If the deceased was a bachelor with dependent parents aged 65 and 60 years, normally 50% will be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. This is because a bachelor will be more care free as he had not yet acquired a wife or child and therefore would tend to spend more on himself. There was also a possibility of the bachelor getting married in which event the contribution to parents will get reduced. Therefore the contribution to the family (parents) will be Rs. 4500/ per month or Rs. 54000/ per annum. As the multiplier will be 10 with reference to age of the mother, the loss of dependency will be Rs. 5,40,000/. Loss of Estate would be a conventional sum of Rs. 10,000/.
Note: The above three illustrations relate to cases where the claimants are dependants. The said illustration demonstrate that even though the income of the deceased and age of the deceased are the same, the 'loss of dependency' will vary, having regard to the number of dependants, age of the dependants and nature of dependency. The ensuing illustrations relate Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:13:42 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 28/45 to cases where the legal heirs of the deceased are not dependants.
(i) If the deceased is survived by an educated employed wife earning an amount almost equal to that of her husband and if each was maintaining a separate establishment, the question of 'loss of dependency' may not arise. Each will be spending from his/her earning towards his living and personal expenses.
Even if both pool their income and spend from the common income pool, the position will be the same. In such a case the amount spent for personal and living expenses by each spouse from his/her income will be comparatively higher, that is tH.R.eefourth of his/her income. Each would be saving only the balance, that is one fourth (which may be pooled or maintained separately). If the saving is taken as onefourth (that is 25%), the loss to the estate would be Rs. 2250/ per month or Rs. 27000/ per annum, By adopting the multiplier of 14, the loss to estate will be Rs. 3,78,000/.
Note: The position would be different if the husband and wife, were both earning, and living together under a common roof, sharing the expenses. As stated in BURGESS v. FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE HOSPITAL (1955(1) Q.B. 349), 'when a husband and wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses, and in consequence of that fact, their joint living expenses are less than twice the expenses of each one living separately, then each, by the fact of sharing, is conferring a benefit on the other'. This results in a higher savings, say, onethird of the income; In addition each spouse loses the benefit of services rendered by the other in managing the household, which can be evaluated at say Rs. 1,000/ per month or Rs. 12,000/ per annum). In such a situation, the claimant (surviving spouse) will be entitled to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in managing Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:13:55 +0530MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 29/45 the household) and loss to estate (savings to an extent of one third of the income that is Rs. 3,000/ per month or Rs. 36000/ per annum). Therefore, the loss of dependency would be 12000X14=168,000/ and loss to estate would be 36000X14=504,000/. In all Rs. 6,72,000/ will be the compensation.
(i) If the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are two non dependent brothers/sisters aged 47 years and 45 years with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a 'family', the tendency would be to spend more on oneself and the savings would be hardly 15%. If the saving is taken as 15% (Rs.
1350/ per month), the annual savings would be Rs. 16,200/ which would be the multiplicand. The multiplier will be 13 with reference to the age of the claimants and the loss of estate would be Rs. 2,10,600/ per annum.
Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardise the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the claimants are not dependants) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and onefourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of nondependant spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are nondependant brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 % of the income. The above percentages, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants."
21. In view of the above observations made by Hon'ble High Court Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:14:04 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 30/45 of Delhi it is apparent that the present action is very much maintainable by his legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, shall form a part of the assets of the said estate. Further, the procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases. Lastly, the Hon'ble High Court has laid down that in case the deceased is a bachelor having nondependant brothers and sisters who are claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of the income of the deceased as the said savings would form a part of the estate to which such brothers and sisters would be entitled by virtue of succession laws. Having understood the principles, this Tribunal proceeds to assess the compensation.
22. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners, speaking through PW1 Angrej Singh and PW3 Meva Singh, have stated that the deceased was working as a truck driver at the time of his demise. Admittedly, the respondents have not disputed the vocation of the deceased either in the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:14:13 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 31/45 pleadings or during trial. In fact, the DAR reflects in part VII at entry no. 55(e) that the deceased was working as a driver. In these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the deceased was working as a driver of a truck at the time of his unfortunate demise. However, there is no material on record, except the oral statements of PW1 and PW3, which could demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assess the monthly income of deceased as per the minimum wages admissible to a skilled person (deceased being a driver of a truck) in the State of Haryana (deceased being an ordinary resident of State of Haryana) at the time of accident i.e. 17/10/2016. At the relevant time, the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Haryana was Rs. 11,884.50/ per month. PW1 has placed on record Election ID card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2 and a Life Insurance Policy of the deceased as Mark A. Both the said documents reflect the date of birth of deceased as 18/03/1963. The date of accident is 17/10/2016. Apparently, the age of deceased was about 53 years at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '11' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioner on account of death of the deceased.
23. Upon computation it is clear that the deceased would have Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:14:21 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 32/45 earned at least a sum of Rs. 15,68,754/ (11,884.50/ x 12 x 11) in the ordinary course of his life had he not lost his life in the unfortunate accident mentioned above. As per the observations made in Keith Rowe (supra) this Tribunal is supposed to assume that 15% of the above income of deceased would have benefited his inheritable estate. Therefore, the total accrual to the estate of deceased would be Rs. 2,35,313/ (rounded off) (15/100 x 15,68,754/) and this sum is to be divided/ distributed amongst the eligible inheritors/ legal heirs.
APPORTIONMENT
24. It has been clearly laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) at para no. 9(19)(i) (reproduced above) that in case of where the death of a deceased causes loss to his estate, no adjustments or alteration of shares his permissible and the amount has to be divided strictly in accordance with the law governing the succession to the estate of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a Hindu. Admittedly, none of petitioners fall in the category of ClassI legal heirs; rather, all the petitioners fall in the category of Class II legal heirs. The scheme of succession for any Hindu is laid down in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A joint reading of Section 8 (b), Section 11 and Section 9 of the Hindu Succesion Act, 1956 would imply that the petitioners no. 2 to 7, being the brothers and sisters of the deceased, would exclude petitioner no. 1 from the estate of the deceased, reason being the fact that the petitioners no. 2 to 7 fall in a prior entry no. II and the petitioner Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.11.25 16:14:29 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 33/45 no. 1 falls in a later entry no IV. In these circumstances, petitioners no. 2 to 7 are held to be equally entitled to the inheritable estate of deceased as calculated in the aforegoing paragraphs. It is hereby clarified that the above observations have been made strictly in the context of the above computations towards loss of estate caused due to the demise of deceased Balwan Singh in a motor vehicular accident and have nothing to do with the intestate or testamentary succession to the other properties of deceased whether movable or immovable.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
25. The petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses and the rest petitioners no. 2 to 7 are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 39,218/ (rounded off) each, being 1/6th share of Rs. 2,35,313/ along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE
26. On 11.02.2020 and 25.11.2021, statement of petitioner no. 3 as well as petitioners no. 1, 2, 4, 5 6 and 7 qua financial needs and requirements were recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per the statement of petitioners, their Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:14:38 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 34/45 household expenditures are Rs. 15,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ per month respectively. Photocopies of the passbooks of the bank account of the petitioners maintained with different Banks were also placed on record. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and passbook were also placed on record by the petitioners, apart from two photographs of the petitioners.
26.1 The petitioner no. 1 is granted a sum of Rs. 19,275/ (Rs.
Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Only) and the said amount is directed to be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the petitioner no. 1 bearing A/c no. 3903767948, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; IFSC : CBIN0282622. The petitioners no. 2 to 7 are awarded a sum of Rs. 50,396/ (rounded off) each (Rs. Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six Only) and the said amount is directed to be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account of the petitioner no. 2 to 7 : A/c no. of petitioner no. 2 : 2353607372, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; IFSC : CBIN0282622; A/c no. of petitioner no. 3 : 2353593196, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; IFSC : CBIN0282622; A/c no. of petitioner no. 4 :
2353538612, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; IFSC : CBIN0282622; A/c no. of petitioner no. 5 : 2353539831, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; IFSC : CBIN0282622; A/c no. of petitioner no. 6 : 4824000100071964, Punjab National bank, Branch :
Radaur, Haryana, IFSC : PUNB0482400 and A/c no. of petitioner no. 7 : 3228466552, Central Bank of India, Branch Bhadson Karnal, HR; Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:14:48 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 35/45 IFSC : CBIN0282622.
LIABILITY
27. As already stated above, R1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R2 being owner of the said vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the time of accident, therefore, R3 is liable to indemnify the R2 in respect of above liability. As such R3 is directed to deposit the above award amount with SBI Branch Tis Hazari Courts along with interest @ 6% per annum, by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners 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. R3 shall inform the petitioners and his counsel through registered posts that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited.
28. A copy of this award be given to all the parties free of cost.
29. 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).
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:14:57 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 36/45
30. 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.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 25/12/2021. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:10 +0530 Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN) On this 25th day of November, 2021 Judge, MACT02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/25/11/2021 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 37/45 Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEAT H CASES
1. Date of accident. : 17.10.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Balwan
3. Age of the deceased. : 58 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased. : Driver
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 11,884.50/per month as per minimum wages payable to a skilled person in state of Haryana.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: S. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. Angrej Singh 30 Years Nephew of the deceased Sh. Jagmal
(ii) 64 Years Brother of the deceased Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:24 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 38/45 Sh. Meva Singh
(iii) 60 Years Do Sh. Arjun Singh
(iv) 49 Years Do Sh. Surjan Singh
(v) 47 Years - Do Smt. Kelavati
(vi) 48 Years Sister of deceased Smt. Bala Devi
(vii) 39 Years Do Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.11,884.50/ per month
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) NIL
9. LessPersonal expenses of the NIL deceased(C) Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:31 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 39/45
10. Monthly loss of N.A. dependency[(A+B)C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency N.A. (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '11'
13. Total loss of dependency NIL (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of NIL consortium(I)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,35,313/ (approx.) estate(J) (11,884.50/ x 12 x 11 x 15/100) 15% of the total income as per Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC. APP.Digitally signed by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:40 +0530MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 40/45 No. 601/2007, decided on 15.01.2010,
17. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses(K)
18.
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,50,313/ (G+H+I+J+K=L)
19.
RATE OF INTEREST 6%
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up to the date Rs. 4,275/ in respect of of award amount of Rs. 15,000/ of P1.
Rs. 67,064/ (rounded off) in respect of amount of Rs.
2,35,313/ of P2 to P7.
21. Total amount including P1 : Rs. 19,275/. interest P2 to P7 : 3,02,377/ (rounded off).
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:47 +0530MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 41/45 (Total amount of Rs.
3,21,652/)
22. Award amount released Rs. 19,275/ to P1;
Rs. 50,396/ (rounded off) each to P2 to P7.
23.
Award amount kept in FDRs As per award
24.
Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the petitioner
(s)
25. Next date for compliance of 25/11/2021 the award CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 25/11/2021.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:15:53 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 42/45
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 25/12/2021. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:16:01 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central 02) Delhi /25/11/2021 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 43/45 MACT NO. 199/17 25/11/2021 Present: Petitioners except petitioner no. 3 with Ld. Counsel Sh.
Paramvir Singh Negi.
Sh. S. Ghose, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company.
None for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Financial statements of the petitioners no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been recorded in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
Submissions heard.
Digitally
Put up for orders at 4 pm. signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25
16:16:09
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
PO MACT02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/25/11/2021(kl)
At 4 pm.
Present: None.
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stand Digitally signed by s disposed of. LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25 16:16:26 +0530 MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 44/45 A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolita n Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED C LAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 25/12/2021.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.11.25
16:16:17
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O.MACT(Central02)
Delhi /25/11/2021
MACT No. 199/17 Angrej Singh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Pages No. 45/45