Delhi District Court
Sumitra Devi And Anr vs Sonu Kumar Pruthi And Anr on 27 July, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-011091-2019 MACT CASE No. 675/2019 DD Entry No. GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19, PS Sushant Lok District Gurugaon, Haryana In the matter of :
1. Sumitra Devi, W/o Sh. Rajender
2. Rajender, S/o Sh. Risal Both residents of Village Barsi (133), Bawani Khera, Bhiwani, Haryana-127032 .....Petitioners Vs.
1. Sonu Kumar Pruthi, S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Pruthi R/o N-7, Upper Ground Floor, Budh Vihar, Phase -I, West Delhi, Delhi -110086 ....Driver/R1
2. Go Digit Insurance Company Ltd.
91, Spring Board, 67-68, Chandra Bhavan Building, 3rd Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi -110019 ...Respondents Date of filing of petition : 20.11.2019 Date of final Arguments : 31.05.2024 Date of Decision : 27.07.2024 Appearance (s) : Sh. Kuldeep, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for R1.
Sh. Shailender Rai, Ld counsel for R2.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date: 2024.07.31
17:07:23 +0530
MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 1 of 17 JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the petition U/s 140 &166/DAR of Motor Vehicle Act (in short "MV Act") pertaining to the death of Late Vikas (in short, the deceased) in road accident.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition/DAR are that on 26.09.2019, at about 12:30 AM, the deceased alongwith Rahul, Manjeet, Naveen and Sonu Kumar Pruthi were going in car no. DL-4CAY-3069(driven by Sonu Kumar) towards Gurugram Bus Stand in a very high speed and when vehicle reached Apparel House, Sector-44, Gurugram, the driver lost control of his vehicle and hit against the divider as a result of which abovesaid car overturned. As a result, the occupants of car received serious injuries and injured persons were removed to Fortis Hospital, Gurugram where Vikash died due to injuries received in the said accident.
2. A DD Entry No. 02 dt. 26.09.19 was registered in this case.
3. Respondent no. 1 have been declared ex-parte vide order dt. 08.11.2021.
4. Respondent no. 2/Insurance Company have filed his WS wherein it is stated that till date, FIR has not been lodged in the present case and there is only GD Entry No. 002 dt. 26.09.2019 was recorded at PS Sushant Lok, Gurugram, Haryana.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date: 2024.07.31
17:08:08 +0530
MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 2 of 17 ISSUES:
5. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by this Tribunal on 18.12.2021:
1. Whether deceased ikas S/o Sh. Rajender expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 26.09.2019 at about 12:30 AM, near Apparel House, Sector -44, Gurgram due to due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-4CAY-3069 which was being driven by driver Sh. Sonu Kumar Pruthi, S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Pruthi, on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e PW1 Sumitra Devi and PW2 Sh. Naveen, who is eye witness to the present case to prove his case.
7. PW-1, Smt. Sumitra Devi, who has deposed in terms of her affidavit of evidence as Ex. P-1. She relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5. She was cross examined at length on behalf of petitioner.
8. PW2 Sh. Naveen was also examined and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. P-2. He was cross examined at length on behalf of counsel for R2. He deposed that he had recorded his statement on the date of accident and DD Entry Ex. PW1/4 was written in this regard. His Adhar Card has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/10. He was also cross examined by counsel for respondents.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:08:23 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 3 of 17
9. Respondents has lead evidence in his defence i.e R2W1 SI Ghanshyam, Crime Staff Farukhnagar wherein it is stated that he was the IO of the case DD No. 002 dated 26.09.2019 u/s 174 Cr. P.C, PS Sushant Lok. He brought the entire investigation report of u/s 174 Cr. P .C was prepared on the statement of Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, Village Gujran, PS Rania, Sirsa, Haryana. In his statement, Sh. Naveen Kumar told that the accident in question was occurred due to save pedestrian person and thereafter, vehicle was dashed with divider and accident occurred. Thereafter, Naveen Kumar also told that there is no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and did not want any legal action against anyone. FIR was not registered in this case only DD Entry was made. He was cross examined at length on behalf of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
10. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and respondents and have gone through the testimony o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether deceased Vikas S/o Sh. Rajender expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 26.09.2019 at about 12:30 AM, near Apparel House, Sector-44, Gurgram due to due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-4CAY-3069 which was being driven by driver Sh. Sonu Kumar Pruthi, S/o Sh. Harish Kumar Pruthi, on the said date, time and place ? OPP".
11. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:08:41 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 4 of 17 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.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:08:53 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 5 of 17 either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent. When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:09:02 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 6 of 17 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:-
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304- A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:09:33 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 7 of 17 Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
15. In view of the above cited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only holds inquiries for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and it does not they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum that the driver of offending vehicle has been charge sheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the accident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
16. Petitioners have examined only PW-1 & PW-2 to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
17. For the respondents, one witness has been examined, who is IO in the present case. None other has been examined.
18. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 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.
19. Respondent has also conducted one evidenceDigitally i.e R2W1 SI SHIVAJI signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:09:53 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 8 of 17 Ghanshyam, Crime Staff Farukhnagar. However, he has not taken any defence regarding negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. However, the eye witness Naveen has, in his defence stated that the driver was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. This statement of eye witness has not even been rebutted by respondents in their defence.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
21. 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.
COMPENSATION:
22. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :
(a) age of the deceased; SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:04 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 9 of 17
(b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents.
23. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.
24. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
25. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no. 1 is the mother of deceased who deposed that all the family members were dependant on deceased. Mother of deceased deposed that his deceased son was earning Rs. 4,50,000/- per annum at the time of accident. He has also placed on record ITR of deceased for the year, 2019-20 which reflects his income to be Rs. 4,05,858/-. Therefore, annual income of deceased is taken to be Rs. 4,05,858/- or monthly income is to be calculated as Rs. 33,821/-.
26. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:17 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 10 of 17 sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
27. According to the Aadhar Card of deceased and DAR, the age of deceased is taken as 23 years as on the date of accident. No document regarding the employment of deceased was produced. Hence, minimum wages of skilled worker would be taken as he was a labourer which is Rs. 33,821/- per month. Hence, the multiplier of "18" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
28. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 23 years of age at the time of accident and no future prospects is awarded to them. As per the judgment of NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi, no future prospects should be given after the age of 60 years.
29. The deceased was unmarried and there are two claimants/ dependants upon him. Therefore, LRs of deceased are mother and father of deceased. Hence, both mother and father of deceased are considered as dependent upon the deceased. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one half(1/2)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) as the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident . Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
.
1 Monthly Income of deceased 33,821/-
(A)
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI
ANAND
ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:27 +0530
MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 11 of 17 2 Less: Personal expenses of 16,910/- (A)/2= (B) deceased @ one third (1/3) (B) 3 Monthly loss of dependency 16,911/- [(A)-(B)]=(C) (C) 4 Annual Loss of dependency 2,02,932/- (C) x 12 = (D) (D) 5 Multiplier @ 18 36,52,776/- (D) x (E) 18(multiplier) = (E) 6 Add: Future Prospects @ 50% 18,26,388/-
Total 54,79,164/-
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
30. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no compensation is to be awarded to the petitioner under this head. SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:34 +0530 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
31. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 12 of 17 titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, I am of the considered opinion that the father and mother of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- x 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." and also in case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram(2018 ACJ 2782) mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
33. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 54,79,164/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs. 44,000 x 88,000/-
2)
3 Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 16,500/-
(@ 16,500/- )
TOTAL Rs. 55,83,664/-
34. Hence, the petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs. 55,83,664/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Only).
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:43 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 13 of 17
35. In this case also, It has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. There is no evidence on record that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The insurance company did not lead any evident to prove its case. LIABILITY:
36. Respondent No. 1 being the driver of the offending car. Hence, he is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending car was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire amount to the petitioner. As such, Respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
37. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 55,83,664/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the petition i.e. 20.11.2019 till the date of actual payment.
RELEASE
38. The statement of the Petitioners in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was not recorded. Therefore, apportionment is withheld.
39. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI
ANAND
ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:10:53
+0530
MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 14 of 17
(b) The 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 bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
40. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
41. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:11:01 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 15 of 17 the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini Courts, Delhi 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 petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
42. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
43. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.07.31 17:11:08 +0530 MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 16 of 17 Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
44. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
45. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
46. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 27.08.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
th SHIVAJI Digitally signed by
ON 27 DAY OF JULY, 2024
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND 17:11:17 +0530
Date: 2024.07.31
(SHIVAJI ANAND)
ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 675/2019(GD No. 02 dt. 26.09.19) Sumitra Devi & Anr. Vs. Sonu Kumar Pruthi & Anr.
Page no. 17 of 17