Delhi District Court
Parvesh & Ors vs . Neeraj & Ors. on 16 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 228/17
Parvesh & Ors vs. Neeraj & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010018232017
1. Smt. Laxmi Rana (wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H. No. 856, Village & Post Office
Bijwasan, New Delhi.
(Herself also expired on 10.05.2021)
2. Sh. Shri Krishan (son)
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H. No. 65C, MU Block,
Pitam Pura, North West, Delhi
M. No. 8368211496
PAN : AHYPR7759J
3. Sh. Ishwar Singh Rana (son)
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H. No. 856, Village & Post Office
Bijwasan, New Delhi.
M. No. 9210414305
PAN : AXJPR7034B
4. Sh. Parwesh (son)
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o 502, Bijwasan,
South West Delhi, Delhi.
M. No. 9213229889
PAN : ANLPR9750N
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 1 of 25
5. Sh. Sachin Rana (son)
S/o Late Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o H. No. 856, Railway Crossing to Post Office,
Bijwasan, New Delhi.
M. No. 9810429703
PAN : ANLPR9750N
... Petitioners
vs.
1. Neeraj (driver)
S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o Village Bijwasan,
Dhalan Mohla, New Delhi
M. No. 9540646847
2. Sh. Vinod Kumar (owner)
S/o Sh. Umed Singh
R/o C112, Block C,
Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi,
New Delhi.
M. No. 9871925075
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
TDI Centre, III Floor,
Jasola, Near Appolo Hospital,
New Delhi
... Respondents
Date of institution of the case - 23.02.2017
Date on which, judgment have been reserved - 16.12.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 16.12.2021
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of the accident 08.12.2016
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record.
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record.
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 2 of 25
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC Not clear from record
before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 23.02.2017
Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 23.02.2017
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 23.02.2017
11)
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16)
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later N.A
on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes
with DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part No
of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action / direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record.
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record.
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
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 ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part No action warranted
of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company?
If so, whether any action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 16.12.2021
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 3 of 25
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes
savings bank accounts (s) near their place of residence
? ( Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 28.03.2018
open savings bank accounts(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card
and the direction tot he bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimants (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s) (Clause
18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook 02.12.2021
of their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o H. No. 856, Village &
(Clause 27 ) Post Office Bijwasan, New
Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) (i) Petitioner Shri Krishan
and the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause having Saving Bank A/c no.
27) 110022070109, Canara
Bank, Pitampura, Delhi
(IFSC Code: CNRB0019096)
(ii) Petitioner Ishwar Rana
having Saving Bank A/c no.
No. 11024049374 Cananra
Bank, Main Road, VPO Bi
jwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC
Code: CNRB0019012),
(iii) Petitioner Parwesh hav
ing Saving Bank A/c no.
No. 11024052494 Cananra
Bank, Main Road, VPO Bi
jwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC
Code: CNRB0019012)
(iv) Petitioner Sachin Rana
having Saving Bank A/c no.
No. 11024050267 Cananra
Bank, Main Road, VPO Bi
jwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC
Code: CNRB0019012)
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 4 of 25
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name Account No. 37665510911 at
and branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBI, District Court Complex,
which the award amount is to be Sector10, Dwarka New
deposited/transferred. Delhi, (IFSC Code
SBIN0011566 and MICR
Code 110002483)
JUDGMENT:
1. The present DAR has been filed for grant of compensation qua the death of deceased Dalip Singh caused in a road accident on 08.12.2016 has been filed on behalf of petitioners Parvesh & Ors against respondents Neeraj & Ors.
2. CLAIM a. Brief facts are made out from the material on record are that on 08.12.2016 at about 10.30 am, near Babbar Chowk and Flyover, Sh. Dalip Singh (since deceased) was coming to his house from Counselor's office. b. In the meantime, when he was on foot, the driver of the Gramin Seva bearing no. DL2W3050 came from behind in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind and due to the forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and received grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
c. The deceased was immediately taken to Metro Hospital, Palam Vihar, Gurugram and from there he was taken to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi where he ultimately expired on 10.12.2016 during his treatment.
d. In this regard an FIR No. 342/2016 was lodged in police station Kapashera on 09.12.2016, U/s 279/304A IPC against respondent no. 1. e. It is alleged that accident was caused solely due to rash and MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 5 of 25 negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 Insurance Company.
f. It is contended as per the affidavit of the late widow of the deceased forming part of the DAR that the deceased was 87 years of age at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and running a fruit and vegetable shop till the year 2012 at his house situated on Main BijwasanNajafgarh Road and was earning ₹35,000/ per month from that business. Further, he was also earning from the agricultural land situated in the village Bijwasan. g. Moreover, in her affidavit, Mrs. Laxmi had deposed that at the time of accident, she and the family of her unemployed younger son Sachin Rana were fully dependent upon the income of her husband and due to the sudden death of deceased, entire family has suffered a great mental, physical and financial loss.
3. DEFENCES a. No WS was filed on behalf R1 & R2 . Further, R1 and R2, both have marked their appearance only once on the date of filing of DAR. Thereafter, they remain absent during the trial of the matter. b. Reply was filed on behalf of R3 / IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
c. It was averred that the accident has taken place on 08.12.2016 but no FIR or DD entry was registered on that day. Further, DAR is neither signed by the incharge, PS Kapashera nor the same was forwarded by ACP, MACT Cell. Hence, the involvement of alleged vehicle seems doubtful and DAR is filed only to grab compensation by the LRs of deceased. Thus, the insurance company denied liability.
d. It was admitted that the abovesaid offending vehicle i.e. Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W3050, was insured with the R3 / insurance company at the relevant time vide insurance policy no.96812678 for a period from 02.03.2016 to 01.03.2017 in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar, which covers the date MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 6 of 25 of accident i.e. 08.12.2016 under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
e. The remaining contentions of the petition were denied.
4. ISSUES On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 28.03.2018 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
1. Whether Sh. Dalip Singh sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 08.12.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Gramin Sewa) no. DL2W 3050 by R1 Neeraj, owned by R2 Vinod Kumar and insured with Respondent No. 3 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE In support of their case, petitioners have examined Sh. Parvesh, son of deceased as PW1. He is also eye witness of the accident. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE In their evidence, respondents have not examined any witness. Thereafter, RE was closed on behalf of respondents vide order dated 10.10.2019 passed by this court.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 7 of 25 Submissions considered.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
9. ISSUE No. 1Whether Sh. Dalip Singh sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 08.12.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Gramin Sewa) no. DL2W 3050 by R1 Neeraj, owned by R2 Vinod Kumar and insured with Respondent No. 3 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined Sh. Parvesh, son of deceased Dalip Singh who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He admitted that he is a eye witness to the accident and deposed that on 08.12.2016 at about 10.30 am, he was in his Gramin Sewa vehicle no. DL2W 2123 between Babbar Chowk and Flyover and at that time his father Dalip Singh was coming to his house from Counselor's office and in the menatime, the driver of the Gramin Seva vehicle no. DL2W3050 came from behind driving his said vehicle in a very rash and negligence manner in fast speed and hit his father with great force and due to this impact his father fell down on the road and received grievous injuries. Thereafter, he and his younger brother Sachin Rana took their father to Metro Hospital Palam Vihar, Gurugram and from he was taken to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi where he ultimately expired on 1012.2016 during his treatment.
b. It is noteworthy to mention here that witness was not cross examined by respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity. It is only respondent no. 1 and 2 who could have controverted the version of the eye witness and shed more light on the circumstances in which the accident took place. However, they have neither cross examined the eye witness nor stepped into the witness box to give their own version. Hence, the version of the petitioners and the eye witness MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 8 of 25 is the only probable version on record without any alternate version being placed on record by the respondents. The witness was cross examined on behalf of the insurance company but nothing came forth which could assail the creditworthiness of his deposition. He reiterated his presence at the spot, the number of the offending vehicle and the manner in which the accident took place. c. The defence taken by the insurance company is to the effect that the offending vehicle has been planted in this case being a Gramin Sewa as one of the sons of the deceased is also a Gramin Sewa driver. Further, it is contended that in the FIR it has been mentioned that the deceased was first taken to Seema Hospital but his MLC from that hospital has not been brought on record. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the deceased appears to have been taken to various hospitals. No doubt, the medical record of Seema Hospital is not on record. However, medical record of Umkal Hospital, Columbia Asia Hospital and Action Balaji Hospital is on record. As per the documents furnished by all three hospitals, the petitioner was brought with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident. It would be too much of a long shot for an argument to content that the petitioner managed to forge record from three hospitals let alone one. Even if it is assumed that there is some manipulation in these records then the same were filed alongwith the DAR and nothing stopped the insurance company from verifying the same. Moreover, all doubts regarding the death of the deceased are laid to rest by virtue of the postmortem report which has been prepared at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, a Govt. Hospital which attributes the cause of death to RTA. d. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the deceased Dalip Singh suffered fatal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured by R3. e. In the light of the aforesaid, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 9 of 25 10. ISSUE No. 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP a. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, PW1 Parvesh has deposed that on 08.12.2016 at about 10.30 am, his father Sh. Dalip Singh(since deceased) met with the accident due to negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Gramin Seva vehicle no. DL2W3050 which was being driven by R1 Neeraj.
b. PW1 in his crossexamination admitted that his father was 85 years old and was working as a vegetable vendor at the time of accident. c. Further, petitioner no. 1 Smt. Laxmi Devi(Now expired) has filed her affidavit alongwith the DAR in which she has deposed that her husband Dalip Singh was an agriculturist and running a fruit and vegetable shop till the year 2012 at his house situated on main Bijwasan Najafgarh Road. He was earning Rs.35,000/ per month from that business and that deceased Dalip Singh was earning from the agricultural land situated at the Village Bijwasan. However, Smt. Laxmi could not be cross examined due to her death. d. In view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased - Dalip Singh, have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident.
e. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners/LRs of deceased Dalip Singh is ascertained under the following heads:
11. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the MLC & Post Mortem Report, the deceased Dalip Singh was 87 years of age at the time of accident as per his medical record. As per the mandate of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr1, a multiplier of 5 is applicable 1(2009) 6SCC 121.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 10 of 25 above the age of 65 years. However, the multiplier has to be reduced by two units for every 5 years thereafter. The last multiplier given in the said judgment is 5 for the age group of 66 70 years. Going by the said logic, the multiplier would reduce to zero at the age of 87. However, that would lead to an anomaly as the multiplier cannot be below '1' in the opinion of this Tribunal. As if we were to consider the multiplier zero then we would have to assume that a person who is 87 years old is neither earning nor capable of earning anything and there would be no loss of income in such cases. This would be an aversion to the Super Senior Citizens of our country who may still be capable of earning their livelihood. Hence, the minimum multiplier of 1 would be applicable in the present case.
12. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS a. In the present case, in view of the material / evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased Dalip Singh was married and has left behind 5 LRs i.e petitioner no. 1 Smt. Laxmi Rana (wife), petitioner no. 2 Krishan Rana (son), petitioner no. 3 Ishwar Rana (son), petitioner no. 4 Parvesh (son) and petitioner no. 4 Sh. Sachin Rana (son). b. So far as dependency is concerned, here it is pertinent to mention that Smt. Laxmi Rana, petitioner no. 1 / wife of deceased Dalip Singh has expired during the trial of the case. However, all the remaining LRs of deceased i.e. sons of deceased are major at the time of death of deceased. In addition to this an affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Laxmi Rana, it is stated that she and one unemployed younger son Sh. Sachin Rana were dependent upon the income of the deceased. On the other hand, reliance is placed by the Insurance Company upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rani Bala & Ors 2, to the content that major sons cannot be considered dependent and that 50% of the income ought to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
2MAC.APP.1/2016 and CM 1354/2016 dated 05th July, 2017 MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 11 of 25 c. In National Insurance Company Limited vs Birender and Ors. 3, it was held that :
"It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only".
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the said case, the evidence on record would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. It was also observed that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one third (1/3rd). d. In the present case, going by the mandate given above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Tribunal can consider all the sons of the deceased as dependents for the purpose of calculation of compensation. However, since the affidavit of the widow of the deceased forming part of the DAR, itself mentions that only she and her youngest son Sachin were dependent upon the deceased, the number of dependents shall be taken as 2. e. In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled above, one third (1/3rd ) of the income of the deceased is liable to 3CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 242243 with 240 OF 2020 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.01.2020.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 12 of 25 be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
13. INCOME AND PROFESSION a. In the instant case, Smt. Laxmi Rana (wife/LR of deceased) in her affidavit deposed that his husband was working as vegetable vendor and was earning ₹35,000/ p.m from that business and also earning from agricultural land situated in Bijwasan. No document qua the qualification as well as income of the deceased is placed on record by the petitioners. Therefore, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages as no evidence has been led regarding the skill or qualification of the deceased. However, from his postmortem report as well as MLC, it is apparent that the deceased was resident of Delhi at the time of accident. Hence, the minimum wages for unskilled worker applicable in the State of Delhi when the accident took place (08.12.2016) shall be considered. The same are ₹9,724/ per month. b. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi4,the deceased was 87 years of age at the time of accident and hence, no future prospects can be awarded at this age.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY a. In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family. b. Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased - Dalip Rana can be calculated as under: 42017 (13) SCALE 12.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 13 of 25
Income of the deceased (per month) ₹9,724/
Add Future prospects NA
Deducting 1/3th towards personal and living expenses of ₹3241.33/ deceased(₹9,724/ X 1/3 ) Monthly loss of dependency (D) ₹6482.67/ (₹9,724/ - ₹2,431/) Annual loss of dependency to the family due to death of ₹77,792.04/ deceased (D X 12=A) Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of ₹77,792.04/ deceased (A X Multiplier i.e. 1) c. Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Sh. Dalip Singh comes to ₹77,792.04/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount ie ₹77,792.04/ as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
15. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 5, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
16. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi6, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards 'funeral expenses'.
17. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Dalip Rana, his 5 5Ibid 6Ibid MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 14 of 25 LRs i.e petitioner no. 1 Smt. Laxmi Rana (wife), petitioner no. 2 Krishan Rana (son), petitioner no. 3 Ishwar Rana (son), petitioner no. 4 Parvesh (son) and petitioner no. 4 Sh. Sachin Rana (son) have suffered loss of love and affection.
Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law / guidelines laid down in the case - Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram7 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur 8, a sum of ₹2,00,000/ (40,000 x 5) is awarded as compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'.
18. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : S. HEAD AMOUNT No.
1. Loss of dependency ₹77,792.04/
2. Loss of Consortium (40,000 x 9) ₹2,00,000/
3. For funeral expenses ₹15,000/
4. Loss of estate ₹15,000/ TOTAL ₹307,792.04/ Rounded off to ₹3,10,000/
19. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.9 Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% 7 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 82020 SCC OnLine SC 410.
92020SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 15 of 25 per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e ₹3,10,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.02.2017 till realization.
20. LIABILITY The offending vehicle i.e. Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W3050 was being driven by R1 Neeraj, owned by R2 Sh. Vinod Kumar, and insured with R3/ IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3 / IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
21. RELIEF Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹3,10,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Ten Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.02.2017 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
The abovesaid compensation amount shall be payable within 30 days by the respondent no.3 / IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company Ltd to the petitioners.
22. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹3,10,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased - Dalip Singh in the following manner with proportionate interest. Since, the widow of the deceased died during proceedings, her share is also been apportioned amongst the sons of the deceased.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 16 of 25
S. Name of the petitioner / relation with Age (at Amount
N deceased the time
o. of
accident)
1. Petitioner no.1 Laxmi Rana (wife) 80 years Since
deceased
2. Petitioner no.2 Shri Krishan (son) 57 years ₹60,000/
3. Petitioner no.3 Ishwar Singh Rana (son) 50 years ₹60,000/
4. Petitioner no.4 Parvesh (son) About 50 ₹60,000/
years
5. Petitioner no.5 Sachin Rana (son) 34 years ₹1,30,000/
Total ₹3,10,000/
23. FORMIVA
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 08.12.2016
ii). Name of the deceased : Dalip Singh
iii). Age of the deceased : 87 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Vegetable Vendor (As alleged)
v). Income of the deceased : ₹9,724/p.m. (minimum wages taken)
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 17 of 25 S. Name of the petitioner / relation with Age (at the Relation with No. deceased time of deceased accident)
1. Petitioner no.1 Laxmi Rana 80 years Wife
2. Petitioner no.2 Shri Krishan 57 years Son
3. Petitioner no.3 Ishwar Singh Rana 50 years Son
4. Petitioner no.4 Parvesh 50 years Son
5. Petitioner no.5 Sacin Rana 34 years Son Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) ₹9,724/ p.m
2. AddFuture Prospects (B) Nil
3. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased ₹3241.33/ (C) 1/3rd
4. Monthly loss of dependency ₹6482.67/ [ (A+B)C=D]
5. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) ₹77,792.04/ 6. Multiplier (E) 1
7. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E=F) ₹77,792.04/
8. Medical Expenses (G) NA
9. Compensation for loss of love and NA affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) ₹2,00,000/ (40,000 x 5)
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/
12. Compensation towards funeral expenses ₹15,000/ (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹3,07,792.04/ (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rounded off to ₹3,10,000/
14. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the (M) date of institution i.e. MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 18 of 25 23.02.2017 till realization
16. Total amount including interest ( L+M) ₹3,10,000/ + @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.02.2017 till realization
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) Account of the petitioners
20. Next Date for compliance of the award. 16.02.2022 ( Clause 31)
24. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited / transferred within 30 days by respondent no.3 / IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 'at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased except Smt. Laxmi Rana regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S. Name Statu Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR N s (at Award Amount o pres ent
1. Smt. Wife Now NA NA NA Laxmi expir Rana ed MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 19 of 25
2. Shri Son 62 ₹60,000/ ₹60,000/ Nil.
Krishan
3. Ishwar Son 55 ₹60,000/ ₹60,000/ Nil Singh Rana
4. Parvesh Son Abo ₹60,000/ ₹60,000/ Nil ut 55
5. Sachin Son 34 ₹1,30,000/ ₹10,000/ ₹1,20,000/ be kept Rana in 12 FDRs of ₹10,000/ each for the period from 1 month to 12 months in the name of petitioner Sachin Rana with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
25. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No.110022070109 in the name of petitioner no.1 - Shri Krishan has been opened at Canara Bank, Pitampura, Delhi (IFSC Code: CNRB0019096), PAN :
AHYPR7759J wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 20 of 25 dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the afore said saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is di rected to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, how ever, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and matu rity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by au tomatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
26. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 11024049374 in the name of Son / petitioner no.2 - Ishwar Singh Rana has been opened at Cananra Bank, Main Road, VPO Bijwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code: CNRB0019012), PAN : AXJPR7034B wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account". MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 21 of 25 Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by au tomatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be is sued to the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said peti tioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
27. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 110024052494 in the name of Son / petitioner no. 3 - Parwesh has been opened at Canara Bank, Main Road, VPO Bijwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code:
CNRB0019012), PAN : AOWPP1073J, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 22 of 25 Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by au tomatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be is sued to the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said peti tioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
28. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 110024050267 in the name of Son / petitioner no.4 - Sachin Rana has been opened at Canara Bank, Main Road, VPO Bijwasan Branch, Delhi (IFSC Code: CNRB0019012), PAN : ANLPR9750N, wherein it has been endorsed that "No Cheque Book and Debit Card is issued in this account".
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 23 of 25 Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to the said petitioner in the form of abovementioned FDR.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of the said petitioner.
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to the said petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by au tomatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be is sued to the said petitioner.
The petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said peti tioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
29. The insurance company shall inform the petitioners / LRs as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the ac count.
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 24 of 25 Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi, for information / com pliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/ their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Met ropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 16.02.2022.
File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2021.12.16
(Announced in the open Court on SETHI 17:31:02 +0530
this 16th day of December, 2021) (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
16.12.2021
MACP No. 228/17 Parwesh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj & Ors. 25 of 25