Delhi District Court
Smt. Sushila Devi vs Sh. Sonbir @ Sonu on 17 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR-III
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(CENTRAL-02):DELHI
MACT Case No. 357702-16
1. Smt. Sushila Devi
W/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
2. Baby Suraksha
D/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
3. Master Badal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
4. Master Lal Bahadur
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
5. Sh. Jaanki Prasad (Father of deceased)
All R/o H. No. 45, Village Padki,
P.S. Jawan, Tehsil Koil, Distt.
Aligarh, U. P. ........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Sonbir @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/o 150, Gali No. 5, Kaushik
Enclave, Burari, Delhi - 110084.(Driver)
2. Sh. Vikas Tayal
S/o Sh. J. P. Tayal
R/o 123, Tagore Park,
Model Town, Delhi - 110009.
Also at:
26/64, Shakti Nagar,
Block-26, Delhi-110007. (Regd. Owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
6Th Floor, Ashoka Bhawan, Nehru
Place, New Delhi - 110019. (Insurer) ......... Respondents
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 1/20
Date of Institution: : 30.01.2015
Date of reserving order/judgment : 17.03.2018
Date of pronouncement: : 17.03.2018
JUDGMENT CUM AWARD
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP) 1 Date of Accident 26.11.2014 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 05.12.2014 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clasuse2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 30.01.2015 Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause2) 4 Date of filing of the Report under section 22.01.2016 173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 30.01.2015 Information Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause) 6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 30.01.2015 Company (clause11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) 30.01.2015 (Clause11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? NA ( Clause11) 9 If not state deficiencies in the DAR 10 Whether the police has verified the NA documents filed with DAR? (clause4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigation Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company 13 Name, address and contact number of the Not Mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company(Clause 19) 14 Whether the Designated officer of the No MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 2/20 insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?(Clause 21) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted Yes the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause22) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency NO on the 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 02.09.2015 offer of the Insurance Company? (Clause
23) 18 Date of Award 19 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimants(s) examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/ their financial condition? (Clause 26) 21 Whether the photographs, specimen Yes signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured/ legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause26) 22 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Mentioned in the award to the claimant(s) (Clause 28) 23 Next Date of compliance of the 17/04/2018 award(Clause30)
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of Sh. Shiv Kumar in the road vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 26/11/2014 at about 7.50 P.M, the deceased and his friend namely Ram Prakash were coming with the hand wooden card from Khanna Market to Sadar Bazar after uploading MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 3/20 his wooden cart and when they reached near Avantika Bai Lodhi Chowk, Mithai Pul, suddenly one car bearing No. DL-8CL-8146 came from the front side Old Delhi Railway Station and hit the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased was fallen down and he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted to St. Stephens Hospital vide MLC No. 730/14 dated 26/11/2014. The injured expired on 26/02/2015. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased in the vehicular accident.
3. The written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1 taking many preliminary objections as regard suppression of true and material facts, maintainability etc. In reply on merit, it is submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the accident was caused due to the negligence and carelessness of the injured/deceased who was pulling his wooden cart in the middle of the road without obeying any traffic rules and the entire story made up by the claimants is false and prayer is made for dismissal of the petition.
4. No Written Statement was filed by the respondent no. 2.
5. The written statement was filed by Respondent no.3 insurance company stating therein that the deceased did not die as a result of injuries sustained in the alleged accident and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground alone. It is further submitted that the death summary filed by the claimants shows that the cause of death was a cardiac arrest and the petitioner be put to strict proof of the fact that the cardiac arrest was due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. All other averments are denied and the Respondent No. 3 prayed for dismissal of the petition.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 4/206. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues arose for consideration on 02.09.2015 :-
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Shiv Kumar (now deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 26/11/2014 at about 08.00 p.m involving Car bearing No. DL-8CL-8146 driven by the Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In order to establish their claim, the Petitioner no. 1 examined herself as PW4 and has exhibited the documents viz., copy of election I card of PW4 Ex.PW4/1, copy of election I card of the father of deceased Ex.PW4/2, Certificate of family issued by Gram Panchayat Ex.PW4/3, copy of discharge summary of deceased Mark Z, medical record of the deceased Ex.PW4/4, bill summary Mark Z1, bill (colly) Ex.PW4/5, DAR Ex.PW4/6, copy of ration card Ex.PW4/7, discharge summary of deceased Ex.PW4/8 and copy of criminal record Ex.PW4/9.
Petitioners have also examined Dr. Ajay Kumar, Assistant Professor, G. B. Pant Hospital, as PW1, Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharma, Sr. Officer, Mithraj Hospital, as PW2, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, Cardiologist, Pandit DDU Hospital, as PW3 and Sh. Ram Prasad as PW5.
8. The Respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW1 in his defence.
9. No evidence was led on behalf of the other respondents.
10. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witness and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 5/20My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 111. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident and Shiv Kumar (now deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an accident took place on 26/11/2014, involving car bearing No. DL-8CL-8146, driven by Respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3.
12. PW-4 (Wife of the deceased) has explained the mode and manner of the accident in her affidavit, Ex. PW4/A. She deposed that on 26/11/2014 at about 7.50 P.M, the deceased and his friend namely Ram Prakash were coming with the hand wooden card from Khanna Market to Sadar Bazar after uploading his wooden cart and when they reached near Mithai Pul, one car bearing No. DL-8CL-8146 came from the front side Old Delhi Railway Station and hit the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased was fallen down and he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted to St. Stephens Hospital vide MLC No. 730/14 dated 26/11/2014. She deposed that the deceased took treatment from different hospitals but he finally expired on 26/02/2015.
13. PW-5-Sh. Ram Prasad is stated to an eye witnesses of the alleged accident who deposed that on 26/11/2014, at about 7.50 P.M, the deceased and his friend namely Ram Prakash were coming with the hand wooden cart from Khanna Market to Sadar Bazar after uploading his wooden cart and when they reached near Avantika Bai Lodhi Chowk, Mithai Pul, suddenly one car bearing No. DL-8CL-8146 came from the front side Old Delhi Railway Station and hit the deceased and due to the impact, the MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 6/20 deceased was fallen down and he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted to St. Stephens Hospital vide MLC No. 730/14 dated 26/11/2014. He deposed that the driver of the car was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and in a zig zag manner and after the accident, the driver of the car was caught by the mob. He stated that he was called by the police and he identified the driver who was driving the offending vehicle.
The Respondents No. 2 & 3 have not cross examined this witness. The witness was cross examined by the counsel for the Respondent No.1 but nothing fruitful came out for Respondent No.1 and the relevant portion of the cross examination is as under:-
I used to work of Rehri since 1995. It is correct that area near Avantika Bai Chow is a crowded area. At the time of accident, there was not much crowd at the spot of accident. The accident took place in the evening. I had unloaded my cart at Khanna Market and was coming back with the deceased in the Thela. I had made a call to the police after the accident. My statement was recorded by the police at St.Stephens Hospital on the day of accident. It is wrong to suggest that I am not an eye witness to the accident. The deceased was known to me as we are from the same village and the deceased was my relative also. The number of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident is DL-8CL-8146. I had seen the driver after the accident. I can also identify the driver. The accident took place at around 7.30 P.M and there was sufficient light at the spot."
14. The Police has filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to case FIR etc. bearing No. 372/14, P.S. Lahori Gate U/S 279/338 IPC which is Ex PW4/6 (colly.) as well as the criminal record including chargesheet etc.
15. While determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 7/20 the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the 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. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
16. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
17. This aspect has also been considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 8/20 may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
18. So far as the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, PW-5 Ram Prashad is the most important witness who was present at the spot and who had witnessed the accident and identified the driver. The cross examination conducted by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has strengthened the case of the claimants so far as issue of negligence is concerned. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has failed to shake the credibility of the witness and the witness has explained the mode and manner of the accident and the registration number of the offending vehicle and he has deposed as per the statement made by him before the police and as per his affidavit filed in the Court Therefore, after considering documentary as well as oral evidence, it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
19. Now, second question comes for consideration is that the death of the deceased namely Sh. Shiv Kumar was due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and he did not die due to the accidental injuries.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 9/20To prove this, petitioners examined Dr. Ajay Kumar, Assistant Professor, G. B. Pant Hospital as PW1. The relevant portion of the statement of PW-1 Dr. Ajay is reproduced as under :-
"I have brought the summoned record pertaining to patient Shiv Kumar aged 37 yrs. Copy of same is Ex.PW1/A (colly) (running into 33 pages). The patient came to the G. B. Pant Hospital, Gastroenterology OPD on 1612.2014 with the history of Blunt Trauma on 26.11.2014. The patient was referred to us from LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. The patient came to us with pain in abdomen and abdominal distension following Blunt Trauma on 26.11.2014 with history of Percutaneous Drain on 01.12.2014. Meaning thereby a pipe was coming out from his abdomen. The drain as per history has drained initially altered coloured blood for first four days after insertion with total volume around 2 liters daily. Subsequently, the colour changed suggestive of bilious fluid draining one liter daily. As per record, the patient was not having any hypertension or diabetes. The case was discussed with Profession P. K. Mishra, Department of GI Surgery and as per him, plan was to do ERCP and EPT to see for the site of Bile leak and transfer the patient to GI Surgery once bed was available. Subsequently, patient was admitted as discussion with Professor A. S. Puri in Ward 7-B, Bed No.
9. Patient was subsequently discharged on 24.12.2014 with advise to collect MRCP and MRI Report and meet Professor P. K. Mishra in GI Surgery, OPD.
20. Sh. Laxmi Narain Sharma, Sr. Officer, Mithraj Hospital, was examined as PW2 and had brought the record pertaining to the patient shiv Kumar exhibited as Ex.PW2/2, which includes case summary, vital charts, prescriptions of doctors, payments and report to police station MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 10/20 with respect to postmortem.
21. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, Cardiologist, Pandit DDU Hospital, Aligarh was examined as PW3 and has brought the summoned record i.e. postmortem report bearing no. 227/15, copy of same is exhibited as Ex.PW3/1.
22. From the statements of witnesses, it is clear that deceased namely Shiv Kumar met with an accident and he was treated for Blunt Trauma Abdomen with Liver Laceration with CHD disruption. After the accident, the patient received serious injuries in his abdomen and he was admitted and treated in St. Stephens Hospital, Tis Hazari Delhi, LNJP Hospital, Delhi, G.B.Pant Hospital, Delhi, DDU Hospital, Aligarh, UP and Mithraj Hospital, Aligarh, UP. From the treatment taken by the deceased in different hospitals, proves that he did not receive minor injuries and the injuries which he received were dangerous to life.
As per Postmortem report Ex PW3/1, the cause of death of deceased Sh. Shiv Kumar is due to the cardiopulmonary as a result of septicemia.
23. From the medical records of above mentioned hospitals, it is clear that the deceased Shiv Kumar was never 100% cured for the injuries which he suffered after the accident and examination of PW-1 is relevant in this regard. While changing the hospitals, he was taking the treatment for blunt trauma abdomen with liver laceration. Lastly when he was admitted in Mithraj Hospital, Aligarh, UP on 25/02/2015, he was not having any external injuries and he was diagnosed with blunt trauma abdomen with liver laceration and on 26/02/2015 he died due to cardiopulmonary as a result of septicemia.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 11/20Now the question is to be decided here is the co-relation between the injuries and cardiac failure leading to the death.
From the statements of witnesses, it is clear that the injuries suffered by the patient in the road accident can be the cause of septicemia and there is strong possibility of cardiac failure due to the injuries suffered by deceased.
Researchers at the University of Liverpool's Institute of Infection and Global Health (IGH) have discovered a common cause of heart damage in patients with sepsis.
As per National Institute of General Medical Sciences sepsis can cause heart attack by attacking the organs. If the heart is attacked by bacteria and is unable to work properly, this will cause a heart attack in the future.
Sole contention raised by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company is that deceased namely Shiv Kumar met with an accident on 26/11/2014 and died on 26/02/2015 but the claimants failed to produce any evidence that death was on account of injuries suffered in the accident. Various documents placed on record show that the deceased suffered grievous injuries but wound was not healed. Postmortem examination was conducted in this case and as per the report Ex PW3/1, the deceased died due to cardiopulmonary as a result of septicemia. It is established that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered in the accident. There is direct connection of heart attack with septicemia and the plea of counsel for insurance company that there is no nexus between injuries and death cannot be accepted. Reliance can be made to Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Sushila Rathi & Ors in MAC. App. 927/2012.
24. From the statement of witnesses and above observations, it is clear that the deceased expired due to Cardio-respiratory failure caused being septicemia and the septicemia and intestinal injuries MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 12/20 of the deceased can be due to injuries sustained by the deceased in road accident.
25. Since, the petitioners have established the connection, they are entitled to compensation arising out of the fatal accident.
26. The issue No.1 therefore, is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:COMPENSATION REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
27. The petitioners have filed the medical bills to the tune of Rs.65,578/- which they have incurred on the treatment of the deceased prior to his death. Therefore, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 65,578/- towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
28. As per the copy of the election I card of the deceased, the year of birth of the deceased is 1974. The date of accident was 26.11.2014. Accordingly, the deceased was around 40 years as on the date of accident.
29. The deceased was stated to be a labourer (puller of hand wood cart) and stated to be earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m., but no income proof has been filed or proved on record. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident was 26.11.2014, on which the Minimum Wages for Unskilled Persons were Rs.8632/-.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 13/2030. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Praney Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 14/20 the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
31. After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid case law laid down, I hereby grant 40% future prospects on the income of the deceased.
Thus, the income of the deceased per month comes to Rs.12,084.8p/- (Rs.8632/- + Rs. 3452.80/- which is 40% of Rs. 8632/-).
The appropriate multiplier applicable is '15' ( for the age group of 35 years to 40 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment.
32. It can very well be presumed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08 that the deceased might have been spending one-fourth of Rs. 12084.8p/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind five dependents. Therefore, after deducting one- fourth towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to be Rs.12,084.8p/- less Rs. 3021.2p-.The appropriate multiplier applicable is 15, as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). The total loss of dependency comes out to Rs. 9,063.6p/- The total loss of dependency comes out to Rs. 16,31,448/-(Rs. 9,063.6p/-x 12 x 15).
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 15/2033. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. The aforesaid amounts are to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
34. In view of the abovesaid judgment age, I hereby award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 17,67,026/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Twenty Six Only) (Rs.16,31,448/- + Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 65,578/-) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
35. ISSUE NO.3 : RELI EF I award Rs. 17,67,026/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Twenty Six Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e. 30.01.2015 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The Petitioner No. 1 shall have 60% share in the award amount whereas The Petitioners No. 2 to 4 shall have 10% share in the award amount and the Petitioner No. 5 shall have 10% share in the award amount.
36. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, Ninety percent(90%) of the amount awarded to Petitioner No. 1 shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount in a MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 16/20 Nationalized Bank for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. Petitioner No. 1 can withdraw the interest monthly from the said FDRs. The share of the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 shall be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of majority. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. The awarded amount of the Petitioner No. 5 be kept in the form of FDR for one year. 10% of the awarded amount to the Petitioner No. 1 be released immediately upon necessary identification.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
37. The Respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
38. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in MACA 682/05 dated 13.1.2010 Union of India Vs. Nanisiri as well as in MAC. APP No. 422/2009 titled as Sobat Singh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. & FAO 842/2003 & CM32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 titled as Raesh Tyagi & Ors.Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. Dated 15/12/2017 have laid certain guidelines which are as under
regarding depositing of award amount:-
"19.To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 17/20 approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii)No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 18/20
39. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its Nodal Officer, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim.
40. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
41. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
42. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 19/2043. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
44. 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 put up the same on 17/04/2018. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2018.03.17 16:09:27 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAKESH KUMAR-III) on this 17th March, 2018 Judge, MACT (CENTRAL-02) Delhi/17/03/2018 MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 20/20 FORMAT-1 Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal MACT Case No. 357702-16
1. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
2. Baby Suraksha D/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
3. Master Badal Singh S/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
4. Master Lal Bahadur S/o Late Sh. Shiv Kumar
5. Sh. Jaanki Prasad (Father of deceased) All R/o H. No. 45, Village Padki, P.S. Jawan, Tehsil Koil, Distt.
Aligarh, U. P. ........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Sonbir @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Mahipal Singh
R/o 150, Gali No. 5, Kaushik
Enclave, Burari, Delhi - 110084.(Driver)
2. Sh. Vikas Tayal S/o Sh. J. P. Tayal R/o 123, Tagore Park, Model Town, Delhi - 110009.
Also at:
26/64, Shakti Nagar, Block-26, Delhi-110007. (Regd. Owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
6Th Floor, Ashoka Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019. (Insurer) ......... Respondents MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 21/20 TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 26.11.2014
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Shiv Kumar
3. Age of the deceased. : About 40 years
4. Occupation of the deceased. Deceased was a Labourer
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis Minimum Wages on the relevant period
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Sushila Devi 33 Years Wife of the deceased
(ii) Surkasha 11 Years Daughter of the deceased
(iii) Badal Singh 7 Years Son of the deceased
(iv) Lal Bahadur 5 years Son of the deceased
(v) Janaki Prasad 77 years Father of the deceased
MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 22/20
7. Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Claim of Response of Amount
Petitioners(s) Respondent(s) Awarded
1. Income of the deceased(A) Rs. 8632/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% prospects is
granted in this
case.
3. Less-Personal expenses of 1/4th deduction
the deceased(C) has been done
4. Monthly loss of Rs. 9063.6p/- p.m
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
5. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 1,08,763.2/-
(Dx12) ( Rs. 9,063.6 x 12) 6. Multiplier(E) 15 7. Total loss of dependency Rs.16,31,448/- (Dx12xE= F) ( Rs. 9063.6 x 12x 15) 8. Medical Expenses(G) 65,578/- 9. Compensation for care and NIL guidance of the minor child 10. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/- consortium(I) 11. Compensation for loss of Rs. 15,000/- estate(J) 12. Compensation towards Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses(K) TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,67,026/- (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 23/20 CONLCUSION
1. An award Rs.17,67,026/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Twenty Six Rupees Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e 30.01.2015 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The Petitioner No. 1 shall have 40% share in the award amount whereas The Petitioners No. 2 to 4 shall have 20% share in the award amount and the Petitioner No. 5 shall have 10% share in the award amount.
2. The petitioners No. 1 was examined by this Court for the financial status in accordance with the procedure laid down in MCTAP by the Hon'ble High Court.
3. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir and put the same on 17/04/2018.
(RAKESH KUMAR-III) PO, MACT-2 (CENTRAL) DELHI/17.03.2018 MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 24/20 New MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs. Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors.
17.03.2018
Present: Ld. Counsels for parties.
Arguments heard.
Put up for judgment at 04:00 PM.
(RAKESH KUMAR-III)
PO, MACT-2 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/17.03.2018
Again at (04:00 PM)
Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment, petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.17,67,026/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Twenty Six Only).
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).
The Petitioners are further directed to open a bank account, if not opened earlier, near their place of residence and to file the photocopy of their passbooks, with due endorsements on the passbook that no cheque book or debit card is issued and file the copy of the same with the Nazir to this Court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 17/04/2018.
(RAKESH KUMAR-III) PO, MACT-2 (CENTRAL) DELHI/17.03.2018 MACT Case No. 57702-16 Sushila Devi Vs Sonbir @ Sonu & Ors Page No. 25/20