Delhi District Court
Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. vs . Kallu & Ors. on 3 July, 2018
Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
Suit No. 200/13
MACT No. 357546/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-001756-2013
1. Smt. Mohinder Kaur @ Smt. Angoori
W/o Sh. Kirat Singh,
R/o A-20, Meera Kunj,
Nilothi Extn., Delhi-110041
2. Sh. Kirat Singh
S/o Sh. Umrao Singh,
A-20, Meera Kunj,
Nilothi Extn., Delhi-110041
Through his wife/General Attorney
Smt. Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori,
i.e. Petitioner no. 1
........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Kallu
S/o Sh.Ram Dass,
R/o Village Habibpur,
PS Bhagwanpur, District roorkee,
Uttrakhand (U.K.)
...........Respondent No.1
(Driver )
2. Sh. Noor Alam, S/o Sh. Deen Mohammad, R/o Village Sher Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (UP) MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 1 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
...........Respondent No.2 (owner)
3. Insurance company Particulars to be disclosed by the Respondents no. 1 and 2 ...........Respondent No.3 (Insurer)
4. Smt. Amrit Kaur @ Gudia W/o Late Sh. Dalmir Singh ...........Respondent No.4 (Proforma respondent)
5. Baby Gurleen Kaur (Minor) D/o Late Sh. Dalmir Singh Through Natural Guardian, Respondent no. 4, Smt. Amrit Kaur @ Gudia R/o H. No. 583, Gali no. 8, Ram Nagar, Rudki, District Haridwar, Uttrakhand (U.K.) ...........Respondent No.5 (Proforma respondent) Date of filing of Claim Petition : 06.05.2013 Arguments heard on : 17.05.2018 Date of passing of Award : 03.07.2018 Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner Respondent no. 1 and 2 are exparte Respondent no. 3 ( Particulars of MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 2 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
respondent no. 3 not furnished till date) Respondent no. 4 and 5 are exparte AWARD:
1. Present claim suit has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short MV Act) claiming a compensation of ` 50,00,000/- in respect of fatal injuries caused to their son i.e. deceased Dalmir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that had taken place on 02.09.2012 within the jurisdiction of PS Bhagwanpur, Roorkee.
(i) Though the accident had not taken place within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, yet claim suit has been filed before this Tribunal as petitioners have been residing in Delhi.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the claim petition are that on 02.09.2012 deceased Dalmir Singh along with Lal Chand and Ranbir was going from Roorkee to Haljora in a Maruti Wagon-R bearing no. UK-08N -3069. It was alleged that at about 8.30 PM, when they reached Pusta Road about 2 KM prior to Sohalpur, Tractor Mahindra 265 D-1 loaded with wood came at the fast speed in a rash and negligent manner from Sohalpur side and hit their car. Consequently, Dalmir Singh and Lal Chand sustained multiple injuries. But Dalmir Singh succumbed to his injuries. In this regard, an FIR no.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 3 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
3/232/2012 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was got recorded at PS Bhagwanpur, Roorkee.
(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident offending vehicle being driven by respondent no. 1 and registered in the name of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 4 and 5 are the wife and minor daughter of deceased. Till date, the petitioner did not disclose the name of Insurance Company.
3. Claim suit was contested by respondent no. 1 by filing his written statement. It was submitted that since the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased, he is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further submitted that moreover, matter had been settled with the wife of deceased in the sum of ` 1,30,000/- which had already been paid by the respondent no. 1 before the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, MACT, Roorkee. It was further submitted that at the time of accident, offending tractor was registered in the name of respondent no. 2.
(i) Other respondents did not deem it appropriate to file their reply.
(ii) Vide order dated 10.12.2015, respondent no. 4 was proceeded ex-parte; vide order dated 09.07.2016, respondent no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte; vide order dated 28.04.2017, respondent no. 5 was proceeded ex-parte and MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 4 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
vide order dated 13.09.2017 respondent no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte.
4. Inadvertently, no issue is framed in the matter.
5. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined following witnesses:
PW1 Sh Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori, mother of the deceased.
PW2 Sh. Kirath Singh, Father of the deceased.
PW3 Sh. Bijendra, eye witness. (i) In rebuttal, respondents did not lead any evidence.
6. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, statement of petitioners were recorded on 22.03.2018, in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 wherein petitioners testified that they need between ` 15,000/-
to ` 20,000/-per month for his house hold expenses.
7. I have heard submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to the contentions.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 5 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
My findings are as under:-
8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that PW-3 is the eye witness and since his testimony remained unchallenged, petitioners have succeeded to establish that the accident had taken place due rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
(i) Though the petitioners have examined three witnesses, yet their case is based on the testimony of PW-3 to prove rashness or negligence on the part of respondent no. 1. PW-3 testified that he had witnessed the accident and same had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. He testified that due to high speed, respondent no. 1 lost his control over the offending tractor and hit in the car of deceased. Since the testimony of PW3 remain unchallenged during inquiry, this Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve his testimony.
(ii) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW3 is sufficient to hold that the accident in question had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no. 1 and 2.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 6 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
9. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on October 30, 2017. Hon`ble Bench reconsidered all the previous judgments relating to just compensation under Motor Vehicle Act including Sarla Verma & ors. vs. DTC & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121; Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & anr (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 9 SCC
54.
(i) After analyzing all the precedents, Hon`ble Bench held as under:-
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 7 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein-
before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be ` 15,000/-, MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 8 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
` 40,000/- and ` 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
(ii) Now, I proceed to examine the facts of the case at hand.
Income of Deceased:
(i) PW-2 testified that deceased used to play Tabala in Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar and used to earn ` 10,000/- per month. Since petitioners failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the income of deceased and the fact that they also failed to file documents relating to his educational qualification, income of the deceased is liable to be assessed as per minimum applicable at the relevant time. Accordingly income of the deceased is assessed at ` 7,020/- per month. In other words, his annual income is assessed at ` 84,240/-.
Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) In case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pooja & ors. MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 decided on November 02, 2017, benefit of future prospects was also given to the LRs of the deceased where income of deceased is assessed at minimum wages. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 9 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) is that the Constitution Bench in its decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid stress on income which is established by evidence. She submitted that the benefit of future prospects, therefore, cannot apply to cases where there is no clear proof of the avocation of the victim or as to his income, particularly where the income has to be notionally assessed with the help of minimum wages.
10. This court is not impressed with the above submissions. It may be noted here that in earlier portion of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the category of self- employed persons may include even an unskilled labourer. The court has gone by the expression "income" and has not drawn a distinction between the income earned in the form of "salary" or one earned by any other mode. The income may accrue as profits from business, fee or remuneration (by whatever name called) from the professional services or wages earned by services rendered, even such services as are rendered through manual labour.
11. The standardization for purposes of factoring in the future prospects has been adopted as the fair principle to determine "just compensation" taking into account various factors including not only the "competing attitude in the private sector ... to get better efficiency" but also others such as a self-employed person garnering his resources to raise his charges / fees to "live with dynamism and move and change with the time", as indeed, and more particularly, taking into account the effect of "price rise"
or "purchasing capacity" having a bearing on MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 10 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
the efforts made to enhance one‟s income "for sustenance".
12. All the above considerations apply in equal measure, if not with greater force, to the marginalized sections of society dependent on minimum wages, a right which is guaranteed by the Constitution and by the law through enactments such as Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In these circumstances, it is most unfair on the part of the insurer to seek to draw a new distinction by attempting to interpret the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) on above lines and deny to the poorest of the poor the benefit of future prospects, a factor intended to apply universally.
13. The submission of the counsel for the insurer that such benefit of future prospects be granted only if there is a proven income ignores the ground realities. If this argument were to be accepted, the marginal sections of the society who are unable to muster formal proof as to the nature of avocation or their earnings will always be denied just compensation. To illustrate the point, a rickshaw puller (or a cobbler, hawker, porter or similar other daily earner) can perhaps never bring on record proof of the earnings he brings home to the family for their sustenance at the end of each working day. Such labour class do not have the resources to earn sufficiently to make the two ends meet and, more often than not, cannot even dream of saving any money for the rainy day. They generally would not have access to a bank to collect (or invest) the savings from which they would be able to arrange proof from the authorities, should the unfortunate need arise, as to the level of their earnings.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 11 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(ii). In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, I am of the view that petitioners are also entitled for addition in the income of deceased towards future prospects.
(iii). As per driving license of the deceased, his death of birth was 03.03.1983. Since accident had taken place on 02.09.2012, it means that he was 29 years 5 months and 29 days old at the time of his death.
(iv) Since deceased was below 40 years old at time of his death, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 40% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 33,696/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i). Since respondent no. 3 and 4 were finan-
cially dependent upon the deceased, 1/3rd income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was about 29+ years old at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 17 shall be apply in this MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 12 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
matter.
Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased 84,240/-
40% addition of towards future prospects 33,696/-
Total 1,17,936/-
1/3rd deduction towards personal and liv- 39,312/-
ing expenses
Total 78,624/-
Selection of multiplier 17
Total loss of income 13,36,608/-
10. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and ` 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In total ` 70,000/- is awarded to the petitioners under the above said three heads.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 13 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.05.2013 (except w.e.f 19.01.2018 to 22.03.2018 as vide order dated 19.01.2018, petitioners were disqualified to claim interest w.e.f 19.01.2018 till they get recorded their financial statements which was got recorded on 22.03.2018) till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT
(IN ` )
Loss of Income 13,36,608/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/-
Total 14,06,608/-
Round off: ` 14,07,000/-
(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Seven Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 06.05.2013 (except w.e.f 19.01.2018 to 22.03.2018) till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of award:-
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 14 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(i) Being the wife of deceased, respondent no. 4 shall get 40% of the award amount; being the daughter of the deceased, respondent no. 5 shall get 30% of the award amount and being the parents, both the petitioners shall get 15% each of the award amount. Their individual share is tabulated as under:-
Name of the Relation Percentage Amount claimant with of (In ` ) deceased award amount Smt. Mohinder Mother 15% 2,11,050/- Kaur @ Angoori Sh. Kirat Singh Father 15% 2,11,050/- Smt. Amrit Kaur @ Wife 40% 5,62,800/- Gudia Baby Gurleen Kaur Daughter 30% 4,22,100/-
11. Disbursement:-
(i) Statement of petitioners was recorded on 22.03.2018 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017, wherein they submitted that they need about ` 15,000/- to ` 20,000/- per month for their personal expenses. Respondent no. 4 and 5 did not get recorded their financial statement as they are ex-parte.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 15 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(ii) In view of the statement of both petitioners, on realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 11,050/- each plus entire interest be released to them and the balance amount of ` 2 lac each in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 4 fixed deposits in their name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 50,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in their saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be re- leased to them only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioners shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 21,105/- from the above said amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iii) On realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 62,800/- plus entire interest be released to respon- dent no. 4 and the balance amount of ` 5 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated De- cember 15, 2017, shall be put in 5 fixed deposits in her MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 16 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1,00,000/- for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a na- tionalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorse- ment of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, respondent no. 4 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 56,280/- from the above said amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iv) Since respondent no. 5 is minor, on realization of the award amount, entire share of respondent no. 5 with interest shall be kept in FDR in nationalized bank till she attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority, 20% of the maturity amount shall be transferred in her saving account maintained in the nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM and the balance 80% of the amount shall be kept in three fixed deposits of equal amount in her name for period of 6 months, 12 months and 18 months. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 17 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
12. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon`ble High Court in MAC Appeal No. 422/2009, titled Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & ors and FAO No. 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 15, 2017:-
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the victims i.e. saving bank account(s) of the claimants shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimants.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System(ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 18 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants 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 claimants shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Tribunal for compliance.
13. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 02.09.2012
(ii) Name of the Dalmir Singh deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 29+ years MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 19 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(iv) Occupation of the Private Job (Tabla Player) deceased
(v) Income of the ` 84,240/- per annum deceased
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
1. Smt. Mohinder Kaur @ 61 Yr. Mother
Angoori
2. Sh. Kirat Singh 62 Yr. Father
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
(IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 84,240/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 39,312/-
deceased (C) (1/3rd)
9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency 78,624/-
11. Multiplier (E) 17
12. Total Loss of dependency -
13. Medical Expenses (G) -
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) 33,696/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and -
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K)
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 20 of 23
Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION 14,07,000/-
(F + G + H + I + J + K = L) (Rounded off)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of 6,30,923/-
award (M)
(04 yr 11 months 24 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 20,37,923/-
23. Award amount released As mentioned
para No. 11
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned
para No. 11
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) FDRs as mentioned in para No.11
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 04.08.2018 (Clause 31) LIABILITY TO PAY:-
14. Though in his written statement, respondent no. 1 took plea that he had already settled the dispute with respondent no. 4 i.e. wife of deceased before MACT Court, Roorkee but during inquiry, respondent no. 1 did not lead any evidence. Even respondent no. 4 also did not admit the fact that she had received any amount from the respondent no. 1.
In the absence of any cogent evidence, I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the bald assertion of the respon- dent no. 1.
(i) Since offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was owner of the MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 21 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount.
(ii) In view of aforesaid discussion, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and respondent no. 4 and 5 and against the respondent no. 1 and 2.
RELIEF:
15. Since offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was owner of the vehicle, both are directed to deposit the award amount of ` 14,07,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition 06.05.2013 (except w.e.f 19.01.2018 to 22.03.2018 till realization of the amount with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners and respondent no. 4 and 5 failing which the respondent no. 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(i). Driver and owner of the offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from to-
day.
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 22 of 23 Mohinder Kaur @ Angoori & Anrs. Vs. Kallu & Ors.
(ii) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No. 1 and 2, for compliance within the time granted.
(iii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on August 04, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iv) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(v) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 03rd day of July, 2018 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
Judge, MACT-1 (Central),
THC, Delhi/V
Digitally signed
PAWAN by PAWAN
KUMAR JAIN
KUMAR Date:
2018.07.03
JAIN 18:11:03 +0530
MACT No. 357546/16(Old Suit No.200/13) Page No. 23 of 23