Delhi District Court
Mact Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 1 /43 on 1 December, 2020
DLCT010000632001
Presented on : 08-01-2001
Registered on : 08-04-2013
Decided on : 01-12-2020
Duration : 19 years 11 months
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY Sh. LOVLEEN
MACT/356688/2016
1. SMT.USHA GOEL
W/o Late Sh. RAJNEESH GOEL
2.Sh. AKHIL GOEL
S/o Late Sh. RAJNEESH GOEL
3.Ms. KANIKA GOEL
D/o Late Sh. RAJNEESH GOEL
4. Smt. KAILASH WATI GOEL-----------------(Since deceased)
W/o Sh. Kishan Chand Goel
5. Sh. KISHAN CHAND GOEL-----------------(Since deceased)
S/o late Sh. Ram Swaroop Geol
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01
17:47:39 +0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 1 /43
All R/o
H. No. 18, ROAD NO. 61,
PUNJABI BAGH,NEW DELHI.
VERSUS
1. CHETAN SHARMA
S/o Sh. K.P.SHARMA
788 D-BLOCK BHAJAN PURA DELHI, NEW DELHI
2. BHARAT BHUSHAN
R/o 32ND MILE STONE JAL VAYU VIHAR
GURGAON, HARYANA
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
57/204, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present petition was filed on 08.01.2001 U/s 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") in respect of the death of one
Rajneesh Kumar Goel (hereinafter referred to as "Deceased") in a road accident
dated 29.08.2000.
Factual Averments as per Pleadings
2. As per the present petition, the deceased was driving his car bearing
registration No. DL-6CG-3615 (hereinafter referred to as "Accidental Car") and
was going from Delhi towards Karnal via GT Karnal Road. At about 3:00 am,
when deceased reached near Jhivar Heri Morh, about 3 KM from Gharaunda, his
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
car collided against a stationary TATA Sumo bearing registration No. HR-26J-8328
LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:47:50
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 2 /43
(hereinafter referred to as "Offending Vehicle") which was parked in the middle of
the road without any indication/signal. The deceased was driving the accidental
car at a normal speed at the relevant time, but in order to give way to other
vehicles which were coming from behind at a very fast speed, the deceased
moved the accidental car slightly to his right and due to this sideways movement,
the accidental car struck against the stationary offending vehicle. Due to impact,
the offending vehicle jumped across to the other carriageway and fell in a ditch.
Whereas the occupants of offending vehicle sustained injuries, the deceased
succumbed to his injuries on the spot. One of the occupants of the offending
vehicle namely Sh. Mool Chand Gupta, who was standing outside the offending
vehicle near the spot of accident, witnessed the said accident; which accident
occurred as the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of road for changing a
punctured tyre. As per the petition, the accident took place solely due to the
negligence of R-1 (driver) in parking the offending vehicle in the middle of road
and who fled from the spot after the accident. Two police officials, who were on
patrolling duty, reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Sh. Mool Chand
Gupta and an FIR U/s 283/304A IPC was registered at PS Madhuban, Distt.
Karnal in respect of the above accident. Hence, the present petition seeking
compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Crores from R-1 who was the driver of the
offending vehicle, R-2 who was the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 who
was the Insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. R-1 and R-2 were served by way of publication but they did not bother to
join the proceedings and were proceeded against ex-parte on 20.03.2002.
4. R-3 filed written statement wherein it raised following preliminary objections
to avoid liability : that R-1 was not holding any driving licence to drive the
offending vehicle, that the offending vehicle was being used in contravention of
the terms and conditions of its permit and insurance policy, and that the petition is
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:48:01 +0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 3 /43
bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of accidental car. On merits, R-3
claimed that the offending vehicle was parked on the Kachcha portion of the road
and indicators/ flashers were also turned on at the time of changing the punctured
tyre but the present accident occurred as the deceased was driving the accidental
car in a rash and negligent manner and at a very fast speed and due to which he
(deceased) lost control over accidental car leading to the present accident. Rest
of the factual averments were denied by R-3.
5. The petitioners filed a replication to the written statement of R-3 wherein
they averred that R-1 was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time,
which was seized by the police during investigation and a copy of which was
supplied to the petitioners, which copy is available on the record. The petitioners
denied that the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms
and conditions of its permit and insurance policy. Petitioners denied the rest of
the averments made by R-3 in its WS.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of above pleadings, issues were framed on 18.09.2002 by my
Ld. Predecessor :-
1. Whether deceased Rajneesh Kumar Goel received
fatal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving
of vehicle no. HR26J 8328 by respondent no. 1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS
7. The petitioners examined petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Usha Goel as PW-1; petitioner no. 5 Sh. Kishan Chand Goel as PW-2; one Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Inspector ITO, Ward no. 29(2), New Delhi as PW-2 (apparently thisDigitally by witness LOVLEEN signed was LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:48:10 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 4 /43 wrongly numbered as PW-2); Sh. Mool Chand as PW-3; Sh. Yogesh Kumar @ Yogender S/o Sh. Mool Chand as PW-4; Sh. Suresh Gautam, Record Keeper, Circle-33(1), ITO, New Delhi as PW-5 and Sh. Vijay Kishore, Inspector, Circle 33(1), ITO, New Delhi as PW-6. PE was then closed on 15.10.2003 by the Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS
8. Only R-3 examined one witness namely Sh. Harsh Mehan, Asstt. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jhandewalan, New Delhi as R3W1. RE was then closed by my Ld. Predecessor on 23.02.2004.
AWARD
9. An award to the tune of Rs. 14,17,39,810.00/- was passed by my Ld. Predecessor on 21.04.2005.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
10. Before the passing of the said award dated 21.04.2005 by my Ld. Predecessor, an application moved by R-3 U/s 170 of the Act was rejected by my Ld. Predecessor. R-3 preferred a Revision Petition against the said order (dismissing the application moved U/s 170 of the Act) in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. During the pendency of said revision petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, award dated 21.04.2005 was passed/published as there was no stay on the proceedings of this Tribunal. However, the Revision Petition preferred by R-3 was allowed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 25.01.2007. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.01.2007, the petitioners preferred a Review Petition no. 397/2007 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:48:17 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 5 /43
11. In the meantime, after the passing of award dated 21.04.2005, the petitioners preferred MACA No. 535-39/2005 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for enhancement of compensation. R-3 also preferred their appeal against the award dated 21.04.2005 vide MACA No. 489/2005.
12. Vide a common order dated 21.11.2008, Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed of the Review Petition No. 397/2007, MACA No. 353-39/2005 as well as MACA No. 489/2005 while observing/directing as under :-
a) Award dated 21.04.2005 passed by my Ld. Predecessor was set aside in whole but the petitioners were permitted to retain 10% of half of the originally awarded amount against security with a stipulation that the same shall be subject to final outcome of the present proceedings.
b) The application moved by R-3 (Insurance Company) U/s 170 of the Act was allowed and R-3 was permitted to contest the claim on the grounds as were available to the owner of the vehicle (R-2).
c) Proceedings of the present petition were to re-commence from the stage where the application of R-3 U/s 170 of the Act was dismissed.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF ORDERS DATED 21.11.2008 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 397/2007
13. In pursuance to the above directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the petitioners were directed to produce all their witnesses for cross-examination Digitally signed by by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:48:28 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 6 /43 R-3 (application moved by R-3 U/s 170 of the Act having been allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi). Accordingly, all the witnesses examined previously by the petitioners, except PW Smt Kulwant Kaur, were subjected to cross- examination by R-3 on different dates. It transpired during the proceedings that PW Kulwant Kaur was already retired from the department and accordingly, some other person was permitted to be examined by the petitioners. Consequently, PW7 Sh. Girish Bhardwaj, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 28(2), ITO, New Delhi was examined by the petitioners. Petitioners' evidence was then closed on 30.09.2010 by their counsel.
14. R-3 again produced R3W1 namely Sh. Harsh Mohan, Asstt. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jhandewalan, New Delhi in its evidence against the petitioners. RE was then closed by the Ld. Counsel for R-3 on 30.04.2011.
15. Matter was then listed for final arguments.
16. While the matter was still pending, petitioner no. 4 Smt. Kailashwati Goel and petitioner no. 5 Sh. Kishan Chand Goel, who were the mother and father respectively of the deceased, expired. On 10.03.2017 my Ld. Predecessor dismissed the applications moved by the LRs of said petitioners U/o 22 Rule 3 and U/s 151 CPC and the said petitioners were deleted from the array of parties. Petitioners were also directed to file an amended memo of parties, which was filed on 04.03.2020.
FINDINGS
17. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. K. Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Sh. P.K. Seth Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. None came forward to address arguments on behalf of R-1 and R-2. I have also carefully perused the entire record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:- Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:48:37 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 7 /43 ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the deceased Rajneesh Kumar Goel received fatal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR26J 8328 by respondent no. 1?
18. It may be noted here that there is an error in the wording of the present issue because the offending vehicle (HR-26J-8328) was stationary at the time of accident and the accidental car struck it from behind. Hence, this Tribunal is supposed to return a finding as to any wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1 in parking the offending vehicle in the middle of the road at the relevant time in order to change a punctured tyre.
19. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions 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 etc. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:48:44 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 8 /43
20. Keeping in view the above parameters, this Tribunal proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of evidence placed on record by either of the parties. It is not disputed that both the vehicles were on the same carriageway of the road at the relevant time. In other words the accidental car was proceeding in the same direction in which the offending vehicle would have gone but for a punctured tyre. It may be noted here for the sake of convenience that the petitioners have averred (i) that the offending vehicle was wrongly parked in the middle of the road by R-1 and, (ii) that the deceased, in order to give way to other vehicles coming at fast speed from behind, moved the accidental car slightly to his right and all of a sudden dashed against the offending vehicle. From the pleadings, it seems that the petitioners are trying to establish the wrongful act/default of R-1 in parking the offending vehicle in the middle of road and at the same time they are trying to justify the inability of deceased to prevent the accident.
21. As far as the above factual averments are concerned, petitioners have examined 02 witnesses in support of their case. One of the witnesses is PW-3 Sh. Mool Chand and the other is PW-4 Sh. Yogesh Kumar @ Yogender. Both these witnesses are stated to have been available at the spot of accident, being the occupants of the offending vehicle which was stopped owing to a punctured tyre. Firstly, we may take up the testimony of PW-4. PW4 deposed through his affidavit Ex. PW4/A that on the relevant date he was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith his family (including PW3). He further deposed that near Madhuban, one of the tyres of the offending vehicle was punctured and the offending vehicle was parked along the central Patri (verge) by R-1 for replacing the punctured tyre despite objections by PW3 as well as himself. He further deposed that the road was not lit nor did R1 put on the lights/ flashers of the offending vehicle. After sometime the accidental car came from behind, and having noticed the parked offending vehicle it (accidental car) tried to steer towards left side of the road but in this process struck against the offending vehicle and its driver (deceased) sustained fatal injuries. This witness LOVLEEN was not Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:48:52 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 9 /43 cross-examined by R-1 and R-2. This witness was subjected to a brief cross examination by R3 wherein he admitted that he could not read English and that he could not tell what is written in his affidavit Ex. PW4/A. The affidavit of PW4 has been prepared in English language and apparently PW4 is not aware about its contents. The petitioners did not take any steps to salvage the situation and as such, this Tribunal is constrained to reject all the factual assertions made by PW4 in his affidavit Ex. PW4/A.
22. Now, we are left with the oral testimony of other eye witness namely Sh. Mool Chand, who has been examined as PW-3. PW-3 is the person who was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith his family. PW-3 deposed before this Tribunal that R-1 was the driver of the offending vehicle and about 2 KM before Madhuban, one of the tyres of the offending vehicle was punctured. PW-3 further deposed that the offending vehicle was parked adjoining the central verge by R-1 for changing the punctured tyre. PW-3 further deposed that one car came from behind and hit the offending vehicle. PW-3 further deposed that there was no light on the road, however, tail lights of offending vehicle were "on". PW-3 further deposed that the driver of the car died on the spot after the impact. PW-3 further deposed that the time of incident was about 2:30 - 3:00 am. PW-3 further deposed that he got one FIR registered, copy of which is Ex. PW1/1. PW-3 was cross-examined briefly only by R-3 as R-1 and R-2 remained ex-parte throughout. Perusal of the cross-examination of PW-3 on behalf of R-3 does not reveal any suggestion contrary to the above factual assertions (of PW-3). The above mentioned factual assertions of PW-3 have practically gone unrebutted. These factual assertions are largely in line with facts mentioned in FIR Ex. PW1/1, which was also recorded at the instance of PW3. The copies of mechanical inspection reports of the offending vehicle as well as the accidental car which are Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 respectively are also corroborative of the factual assertions of PW3. In fact it is not disputed that R1 was prosecuted by the police/ state, vide a charge sheet, for the commission ofDigitally byoffences LOVLEEN signed U/s LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:49:01 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 10 /43 283/304A IPC. A copy of postmortem report Ex. PW1/2 of deceased is also corroborative of the above factual assertions. 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 PW3 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Respondents have not lead any evidence to contradict the oral testimony of PW3. In the conspired opinion of this Tribunal the oral testimony of PW3 is reliable and worth acting upon. Therefore, now this tribunal proceeds to assess the effect of oral testimony of PW3 on the merits of petitioners' case.
Parking of Offending Vehicle in the Middle of road
23. The case of the petitioners is that R-1 wrongly parked the offending vehicle in the middle of the road and which act of R-1 is the proximate cause of accident. Firstly we may assess as to whether the plea of petitioners to the effect that R-1 parked offending vehicle in the middle of the road is established or not. We may observe here that PW3 Sh. Mool Chand has stated in the FIR Ex. PW1/1 that the offending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road by R-1 for the purpose of changing a punctured tyre. PW3 has stated before this Tribunal that the offending vehicle was parked by R-1 at a spot adjoining the central verge of the road for the purpose of changing the punctured tyre. As such, PW3 has corroborated the claim of the petitioners that the offending vehicle was parked on the road itself by R1 at the relevant time and not on the side of the road, as claimed by R3 in its pleadings. By not leading any evidence to the contrary, R3 has allowed the above factual assertions of PW3 to go unrebutted. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is supposed to decide as to whether or not the act and conduct of R1 was negligent. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 122 and 126 of the Act. Both the provisions are reproduced below for ready reference :- Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:49:08 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 11 /43 "122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position - No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.
126. Stationary vehicles - No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in the driver's seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the absence of the driver."
23.1 Apparently R1 was supposed to be circumspect while parking the offending vehicle at the place of occurrence. This Tribunal further wants to cite Rule 15 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 which prohibits parking in a manner which causes or exposes the other road users to danger/ obstruction or undue inconvenience. Rule 15 is reproduced before for ready reference :-
15. Parking of the vehicle.
(1) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or markings on the road side, he shall park his Digitally signed by vehicle in such manner. LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:49:17 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 12 /43 (2) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle :
(i) at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge;
(ii) on a foot-path;
(iii) near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing;
(iv) in a main road or one carrying fast traffic;
(v) opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle;
(vi) alongside another parked vehicle;
(vii) on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line;
(viii) near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant;
(ix) on the wrong side of the road;
(x) where parking is prohibited;
(xi) away from the edge of the footpath.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:49:23 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 13 /43 23.2. As such, R-1 acted in gross violation of the rules governing the use of offending vehicle on a public road, more particularly on a highway. Such a misconduct of R-1, that too on an unlit stretch of a highway, is nothing but gross negligence and default. This Tribunal feels that this misconduct of R-1 needs to be kept in mind while deciding the cause of the present accident. Now this Tribunal proceeds to deal with the other factual averments of petitioners as well as the evidence regarding the cause of accident.
Cause of Accident Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:49:29 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 14 /43
24. The petitioners have pleaded that at the relevant time the deceased, in order to give way to other vehicles coming at fast speed from behind, moved the accidental car slightly to his right and all of a sudden dashed against the offending vehicle. Again we have to turn to oral testimony of eye witness PW3 Sh. Mool Chand. PW3 Mool Chand deposed nothing before this Tribunal regarding the attempt allegedly made by the deceased to give way to vehicles coming from behind and subsequently dashing against the wrongly parked offending vehicle. The only aspect in which PW3 has supported the averments of petitioners is the fact that the offending vehicle was parked by R-1 adjoining the central verge of the road and accidental car dashed against the offending vehicle. Rather at one place, PW3 has suggested that the deceased was not careful while driving the accidental car. He does show by deposing that the tail lights of the offending vehicle were "on". It may be observed here that the petitioners did not bother to challenge/ cross-examine the oral testimony of PW3 when he deposed that the tail lights of the offending vehicle were "on". The effect of this failure on the part of petitioners shall be dealt with later on in this judgment. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to confine ourselves to the aspect of cause of accident as felt by PW3. At the cost of repetition, we may observe here that PW3 is silent as to what caused the deceased to dash against the wrongly parked offending vehicle. In this respect, we may refer to the FIR Ex. PW1/1 as the said document is relied by petitioners. In the FIR, PW3 has stated clearly and categorically that due to wrong parking of offending vehicle by R-1, the traffic was getting obstructed. As per FIR, the driver of accidental car, when the accidental car reached near the offending vehicle, was blinded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction due to which the accidental car dashed into the parked offending vehicle. This fact is contrary to the pleadings of petitioners but the petitioners did not bother to question/ cross examine PW3 in this regard. Moreover the petitioners chose to remain silent when PW3 failed to state the cause of accident during this enquiry. Petitioners Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:49:36 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 15 /43 did not raise any query to elicit a response from PW3 in this regard for unknown reasons. No other material has been placed on record by petitioners in order to substantiate their plea as to cause of accident. As such, it could be safely held that the averment of the petitioners to the effect "that the deceased, in order to give way to other vehicles coming at fast speed from behind, moved the accidental car slightly to his right and all of a sudden, struck the offending vehicle" remains not proved. Rather, a new and unchallenged fact has come on record from the oral testimony of PW3- "that tail lights of offending vehicle were on at the time of accident". The effect of this new fact on the final decision of this case is discussed below.
25. Having come across a new fact, this tribunal must decide its effect on the merits of this case. Admittedly, this new fact "that tail lights of offending vehicle were on at the time of accident" has come on record for the first time only during the course of this enquiry (i.e. at the time of recording of oral testimony of PW3). Admittedly, no such thing is mentioned in the FIR Ex PW1/1 (i.e. the first document which records the occurrence of the accident), which was also recorded at the instance of PW3. Although Ld. Counsel for petitioners have urged this tribunal to discard this new fact on the ground that no such statement was made by PW3 at the time of recording of FIR, however he is at a loss of words to explain as to why this particular piece of statement was not challenged by way of cross-examination by petitioners at the relevant time. Admittedly, an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts. If an eyewitness deposes some additional facts subsequently and the affected party fails to rebut or challenge the additional facts deposed by said witness, then the party shall have to bear the consequences of their own omission. As such, this Tribunal finds no reason to discard this additional fact. Hence, it could be safely assumed that the tail lights of the offending vehicle were "on" at the relevant time. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:49:43 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 16 /43
26. So, now we have two facts which have been proved by the petitioners to the satisfaction of this tribunal- (i) that the offending vehicle was wrongly parked in the middle of the road by R-1, and (ii) that tail lights of the offending vehicle were "on". Liability of respondents is to be decided on the basis of these facts. This tribunal has already held in the afore going paragraphs that R-1 failed to comply with the duties imposed by law by choosing to park offending vehicle in the middle of road and has exposed himself to all the consequential penalties. Although tail lights of the offending vehicle were "on" at the relevant time but in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the same does not absolve R-1 of his liability completely. Merely by leaving tail lights on while parking the offending vehicle in the middle of the road, R-1 did not fulfill his duty to avoid danger/ obstruction or undue inconvenience to his fellow road users; particularly when the relevant stretch of the road was not lit (PW3 deposed before this Tribunal that there was no light on the road). It would be highly unreasonable to expect from a driver of a vehicle going on a highway, where the permitted speed limits are always higher than the permitted speed limits in urban/ residential areas or city limits, to gauge and assess perfectly from 1-2 small red colour lamps (tail lights) as to whether the vehicle in front is moving or is stationary, particularly when the road is not lit. But at the same time, the law does not encourage such a driver, even though driving on an unlit road, to totally disregard any glowing tail lamps visible in the distance and to keep driving in the same lane without getting cautious and then dash his vehicle in the said tail lamps. The accident occurred at 3:00 AM, so it could be assumed that traffic load would not be much at the relevant time. But still the deceased dashed the accidental car into the offending vehicle with such a speed that the offending vehicle jumped across the central verge, despite a punctured tyre, onto the opposite carriageway of road and then fell into a ditch. This fact speaks volumes about the excessively high speed at which the accidental car was being driven by the deceased at the relevant time. Moreover, the very fact that deceased failed to take evasive action till the last Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:49:49 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 17 /43 moment despite seeing a wrongly parked vehicle with glowing tail lamps betrays his own negligence as well, particularly when there is no plea regarding any mechanical defect in the accidental car. Here this tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that in the given circumstances the misconduct of R-1 in parking the offending vehicle in the middle of road is the proximate cause of action. However the inaction of deceased also contributed to the accident as well as its disastrous consequences. Since the present one is clearly a case of contributory negligence, therefore it requires severance of compensation to the extent for which the deceased was responsible for the accident. In this regard, this Tribunal relies upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal & Ors. Manu/ SC/0065/ 2014 as well as the observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vandna Kumari & Ors. Vs. Ramesh & Ors. Manu/DE/2444/2018.
27. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to hold that the compensation admissible to the petitioners may be reduced by 25% as this Tribunal feels that the deceased was responsible to the said extent for the occurrence of the accident. Rest of the responsibility for the accident is attributable to R-1.
28. This issue is accordingly decided.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:49:55 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 18 /4329. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for wrongly parking the offending vehicle in the middle of the road at the relevant time and due to which wrongful act of R1, the accidental car driven by deceased dashed against it, 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
30. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:01 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 19 /43
31. In this regard, the petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased as PW1. PW1 deposed through her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident and in order to substantiate this claim she placed on record copies of secondary school certificate as well as passport of deceased as Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 respectively. As per document Ex. PW1/5, the date of birth of deceased is 31.07.1961. Document Ex. PW1/6 also depicts an identical date of birth as mentioned in Ex. PW1/5. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to presume the date of birth of deceased as 31.07.1961. As such, the deceased was aged about 39 years on the date of accident i.e. 29.08.2000. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '15' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners in respect of death of the deceased.
32. Now we come to earnings of the deceased. As per the deposition of PW1, the deceased was engaged in export business and was proprietor/ director in Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kanika Enterprises and a partner in Grand Links International as well as M/s Rakesh Paper Co. PW1 further stated that deceased was an Income Tax Assessee and his last IT Return of the year 2000- 2001 reflects the annual income of deceased as Rs. 1,42,60,782.00/-. PW1 did not place any material on record to corroborate her statement as to the annual income of the deceased. Similarly, PW2 K.C. Goel (petitioner no. 5, who is since deceased) deposed about the sources of income as well as actual income of the deceased on the same lines as deposed by PW1. However, he too did not place Digitally signed any corroborative document on record. by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:07 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 20 /43
33. However, in order to prove the income of the deceased, petitioners examined other witnesses namely PW Smt. Kulwant Kaur, PW5 Sh. Suresh Gautam, PW6 Sh.Vijay Kishore and PW7 Sh. Girish Bhardwaj all of whom are officials/ officers of Income Tax Department. PW Smt. Kulwant Kaur was examined before the passing of award dated 21.04.2005, but after the said award was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, PW Smt. Kulwant Kaur was not produced before this Tribunal by petitioners for cross examination by R- 3 and hence her testimony would not be considered by this tribunal. Rather PW7 Girish Bhardwaj was examined in her place to prove the documents. Firstly, we may take up the oral testimony of PW5 Sh. Suresh Gautam. He deposed that Firm Grand Links International is assessed to income tax as a partnership firm. He placed before this Tribunal the income tax record of the said firm for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, copies of which are Ex. PW5/1 and PW5/2 respectively (PW5/2 is not available in judicial file). In view of the observations made by Apex Court at para 10 in Malarvizhi and Ors v/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/1700/2019, PW5/1 may be considered by this Tribunal to assess the income of deceased.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:50:13
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 21 /43
34. Proceeding further, it has been observed that the petitioners have examined PW6 Sh. Vijay Kishore who despite having stated that original IT Returns were not traceable in the department identified the copies of IT Returns filed by Grand Links International Firm pertaining to the year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 as Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/3 respectively. Perusal of documents Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/3 reveal that they are Saral Forms filled in hand by some unknown person. Signatures on the same have not been identified/ proved during evidence. All bear a stamp of the IT Department. It seems that Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/3 are receipted copies of the IT Returns filed on behalf of Grand Links International Firm. Although this Tribunal entertained doubts about considering these documents without any oral evidence regarding identification of handwriting/ signatures on them, particularly in the absence of originals, however, in view of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has chosen to rely upon similar documents in Sangita Arya & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0481/2020 ( in para no. 7 ) this Tribunal may consider these documents while assessing the income of the deceased. Lastly, the petitioners examined PW7 Sh. Girish Bhardwaj who despite having stated that original IT Returns were not traceable in the department identified the copies of IT Returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-2002 as Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/D respectively. Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/D are similarly placed as Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/3 above as far as absence of evidence regarding handwriting/ signatures, but in view of the observations made in Sangita Arya & Ors (supra) may be considered while assessing the income of deceased. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:21 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 22 /43
35. Apparently, this Tribunal has before it (i) oral testimony (of PW1 and PW2) regarding the alleged sources of income of deceased and (ii)documentary materials (being the copies of IT Returns) regarding the income of the deceased from the above sources. There is no reason to discard the individual IT Returns of deceased. However, a closer scrutiny of the records reveals that except for oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, there is no material on record which depicts that the deceased was a partner in the firm Grand Links International. It is not disputed that the firm Grand Links International was reconstituted vide a Deed Ex. PW2/DA, allegedly after the death of the deceased, however, the petitioners have failed to place on record the original partnership deed which could have assisted and corroborated the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was a partner in the firm Grand Links International. Reason for holding back this document is unknown and an adverse view has to be taken against the petitioners. Even if this aspect is ignored, still the claim of the petitioners as to the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 1,42,60,782/- stands on a very weak footing. As per the IT Returns of firm Grand Link International Ex. PW6/1 to PW6/3 and Ex. PW5/1 (Ex. PW5/2 is not traceable in the judicial file), the income of the firm stood at Rs. 1,94,84,973/- (year 1998-99), Rs. 3,03,94,457/- (year 1999-2000), Rs. 5,51,93,337/- (year 2000-01) and Rs. 3,58,61,655/- (year 2001-02) respectively. It is claimed by the petitioners that deceased was a partner in the firm Grand Link International and was having a share of 25% in the said income of the said firm. So, looking at the above income of firm Grand Link International, we should reasonably expect the income of deceased to be also quite high. However, the individual IT Returns of the deceased pertaining to assessment years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 which are Ex. PW4/A to PW4/D respectively do not reflect any income from the firm Grand Links International. This infirmity could not be ignored, particularly in the absence of any documentary record which reflect that the deceased was a partner in the firm Grand Links International or was having any income to the tune of Rs.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date: 2020.12.01 17:50:38 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 23 /43 1,42,60,782/- during any time between the financial years 1998 to 2002. Although the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has tried to wriggle out of this unfavourable predicament by referring to a statement made by PW2 during cross-examination to the effect - 'that the earnings of the firm Grand Links International were transferred to the "Capital Account" of each partner', however, this argument could not be upheld as the internal accounting practice of the said firm would not absolve the deceased from his legal liability to furnish income details from all his sources in his personal IT Returns. Moreover, this argument that the income of the firm Grand Links International was transferred to the "Capital Account" of each partner has not been corroborated by any document. If the said sum falling in the capital account of deceased was 'income' then there is no reason why the said amount should not be reflected in the individual IT Returns of deceased. In the considered opinion of this tribunal, whether or not such income of deceased was exempt from tax, still it was required to be disclosed in the individual IT returns of deceased. It is apparent from the records that copies of receipted Saral Forms pertaining to firm Grand Links International Ex. PW6/1 to PW6/3 and Ex. PW5/1 do not reflect any connection of deceased with the said firm and apart from those documents the only material relied on by the petitioners to claim that the deceased was having any income from the firm Grand Links International is the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 9 in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal MANU/SC/7265/2007, this Tribunal could not act upon such a bald testimony of PW1 and PW2. Accordingly, this Tribunal is unable to hold that the deceased was having any income from the firm Grand Links International at or before his death.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:44 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 24 /43
36. Now this Tribunal is left only with the personal IT Returns of the deceased pertaining to the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 which are Ex. PW4/A to PW4/D respectively. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi and Ors v/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/1700/2019 these IT Returns could be relied upon to assess the income of the deceased. A comparative chart of the said IT Returns is prepared below for ready reference :-
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:50 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 25 /43 PW4/A PW4/B PW4/C PW4/D Assessment 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 year Total Income Rs. 1,53,508.22/- Rs. 3,59,317/- Rs. 4,62,448/- Rs. 1,95,706/-
Tax Liability Rs. 20,053/- Rs. 81,796/- Rs. 1,12,735/- Rs. 32,713/-
Established Rs. 1,33,455.22/- Rs. 2,77,521/- Rs. 3,49,713/- Rs. 1,62,993/-
Income Date of filing 25.12.1998 31.12.1999 29.11.2000 28.12.2001 of IT Return Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:50:58 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 26 /43
37. It is apparent that the IT Returns Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D were filed after the demise of deceased on 29.08.2000 and therefore, I am not inclined to rely upon the same in view of the observations made in Sangita Arya & Ors. (supra). This Tribunal finds it appropriate to rely upon the IT Return Ex. PW4/B which was filed by the deceased before his unfortunate demise. As per said IT Return, the total income of the deceased was Rs. 3,59,317/- and his tax liability was Rs. 81,796/-. As such, the established annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,77,521/-. This amount shall be the criteria for determining the final compensation.
38. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that the deceased was survived by total six petitioners. P-1 is his wife/widow, P-2 and P-3 are their minor children. P-5 & P-6 were the mother and father respectively of the deceased, but P-4 and P-5 have already expired. Accordingly, the compensation for the deceased is admissible only to P-1, P-2 and P-3.
39. However, irrespective of this, 1/3 rd of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 39 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENLOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:03 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 27 /4340. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs. 38,85,294/- (rounded off) (Rs. 2,77,521/- X 140/100 X 2/3 X 15). However, since the deceased has been held to have contributed to the extent of 25% in the occurrence of the present accident, accordingly a sum of Rs. 9,71,324/- (1/4th of Rs. 38,85,294/-) is liable to be deducted. Resultantly,Rs. 29,13,970/- (Rs. 38,85,294/- - Rs. 9,71,324/-) is being awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
41. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are further entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium"::-
a) Spousal Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- b)Parental Consortium : Rs. 80,000/-( Rs. 40,000X2) 42. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- (Rs.15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 80,000) under this head.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:10 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 28 /43 ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
43. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 30,63,970/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Sixty Three Thousands Nine Hundred Seventy only) (Rs. 29,13,970/-
+ Rs. 1,50,000/-), along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
APPORTIONMENT
44. Out of awarded amount of compensation, 40% is given to P-1 (widow of the deceased) and 30% each to P-2 and P-3 (the children of the deceased) and their above shares shall also include the compensation awarded to them under the above two heads. Interim Compensation if any shall be adjusted in this amount.
RELEASE AND LIABILITY
45. Statement of all the Petitioners qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 on 19-12-2019. As per their statements their household expenditure is Rs. 20,000/- per month each.
46. There is no material on record which suggests any violation of the terms & conditions of Insurance Policy by R-1 (Driver) or R-2 (Owner). R-3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and is therefore, liable to indemnify R-2 for any liability incurred by R-1 while driving the offending vehicle. As such, R-3 being the insurer, is liable to pay the award amount. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:16 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 29 /43
47. However, admittedly 10% of half of the awarded amount ( initially an award was passed on 21.04.2005 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,17,39,810.00/- was granted) was already released in favour of petitioners no. 1 to 5. It is apparent that the final amount awarded to the petitioners nos. 1 to 3 (petitioners no. 4 and 5 have already expired) is Rs. 30,63,970/-, which is much less than the amount previously released in favour of petitioners. In case, the sum of final award amount alongwith interest granted by this Tribunal today is less than the sum already released to the petitioners, the excess shall be refunded by the petitioners no. 1 to 3 to R-3 within 30 days from today with interest @ 6% per annum beginning from today till the date of refund in favour of R-3 under intimation to this Tribunal as well as Ld. Counsel for R-3. The security furnished by the petitioners at the time of initial release of compensation amount @ 10% of half of the amount awarded vide award dated 21.04.2005 shall stand discharged on the same day when the petitioners refund the sum released previously to them in excess of the compensation granted today by this Tribunal. In case, the petitioners are entitled to a sum greater than the amount already released in their favour, the same shall be released by R-3 into the respective bank accounts of Petitioners No. 1 to 3 within 30 days from today under intimation to this Tribunal as well as to the petitioners failing which appropriate action shall be taken in terms of MCTAP 2018.
48. A copy of this award be given to all the parties free of cost.
49. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:51:26 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 30 /43
50. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:-
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:33 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 31 /43
1. Date of the accident 29/08/2000
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 30/08/2000 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the NA Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. NA before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report NA (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. NA
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). NA
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? NA
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later NA on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted? Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:50 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 32 /43
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not Mentioned Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not Mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the No liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of 18/09/2002 the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 01/12/2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of No the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account (s) near their place of residence? Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:51:57 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 33 /43
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) were directed to 09/09/2019 open savings bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 19/12/2019 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s). House No. 18, Road No. 61, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) P-1(account and the address of the bank with IFSC Code. details) Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi saving account No. 51572010021650 IFCS Code ORBC0101116 P-2(account details)Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi Digitally by LOVLEEN signed saving Date:
LOVLEEN account
2020.12.01
No. 17:52:09
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 34 /43
51572010021550
IFCS Code
ORBC0101116
P-3(account
details) Oriental
Bank of
Commerce,
Branch Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi
saving account
No.
51572010021660
IFCS Code
ORBC0101116
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account (s) in Yes near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were examined at the time Yes of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name NA and branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Digitally signed deposited/transfered. LOVLEEN by LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:52:16 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 35 /43 File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 04/01/2021.Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:52:28 +0530 Announced in the open court ( LOVLEEN) On this 1st day of December, 2020 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/01/12/2020
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IV-A Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:52:34 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 36 /43 TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 29/08/2000
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Geol
3. Age of the deceased. : 39 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased.: Businessman
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of the ITRs
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:52:41
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 37 /43
S. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Usha Goel 54 Years Widow of the deceased
(ii) Sh. Akhil Goel 32 Years Son of the deceased
(iii) Ms. Kanika Goel 29 Years Daughter of the deceased
Computation of Compensation
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:52:49
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 38 /43
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
7. Income of the Rs. 23,126.75/- per month
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future 40% future prospects granted in this case.
Prospects (B)
9. Less-Personal 1/3rd deduction has been done
expenses of the
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 21,584 (Approximately)
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs. 2,59,019 (Approximately) dependency (Dx12) ( Rs. 21,584/ x 12) 12. Multiplier(E) 15
13. Total loss of Rs. 29,13,970/-/ (1/4th of Rs. 38,85,294/- is dependency deducted towards contributory negligence of (Dx12xE= F) the deceased himself I.e Rs. 38,85,294/- Less Rs. 9,71,324/-
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:52:58 +0530 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 39 /43
14. Medical NIL Expenses(G)
15. Compensation for Rs. 1,20,000- (Rs. 40,000/-X3) loss of consortium(I)
16. Compensation for Rs. 15,000/-
loss of estate(J)
17. Compensation Rs. 15,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
18.
TOTAL Rs. 30,63,970/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
19.
RATE OF 7.5%
INTEREST
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up Rs. 45,95,955/-
to the date of award
21.
Total amount Rs. 76,59,925/-
including interest
22.
Award amount P-1= NIL Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
released Date:
LOVLEEN
P-2= NIL 2020.12.01
17:53:08
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 40 /43
P-3= NIL
23.
Award amount kept NIL
in FDRs
24.
Mode of Mentioned in the award
disbursement of the
award amount to
the claimant (s)
25
Next date for 04/01/2021
compliance of the
award
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01
17:53:19
+0530
MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 41 /43
CONCLUSION
1. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 30,63,970/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Sixty Three Thousands Nine Hundred Seventy only) (Rs. 29,13,970/- + Rs. 1,50,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation. Out of awarded amount, 40% share is given to P-1 (wife of the deceased), and 30% each to P-2 (Son of the deceased) and P-3 (daughter of the deceased) respectively. The above directions are subject to stipulations mentioned in Para No. 47 of the award dated 01/12/2020.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 04/01/2021.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:LOVLEEN 2020.12.01 17:53:28 +0530 ( LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central - 02) Delhi /01/12/2020 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 42 /43 MACT NO. 356688-16 01.12.2020 Present: None.
Vide my separate award of the even date, the present petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 04.01.2021. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2020.12.01 17:53:34 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O.MACT(Central-02) Delhi /01/12/2020 MACT Case No. 356688/16 Usha Goel Vs Chetan Sharma & Ors Page No. 43 /43