Delhi District Court
Champa (F) (Remanded Back Petition) vs Gajender Sawhney (Nia) on 27 August, 2024
DLCT010005782019
Presented on : 10-01-2019
Registered on : 06-04-2016
Decided on : 27-08-2024
Duration : 08 Years 04 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA.
MACT NO.110/19
1. CHAMPA
W/o Late Sh.Santosh
2. MUNNI
D/o Late Sh.Santosh
3. CHUNNI
D/o Late Sh.Santosh
4. JITENDER
S/o Late Sh.Santosh
R/o H.No.13, Kolhnee Khudar,
Khulhneevis Jurga,
Disst. Sidharath Nagar, UP.
At present:-
All R/o H.No. 3089/5, Bhim Gali,
Ram Bazar, Mori Gate,
Delhi-110006. .......Petitioners
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 1/25
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27
13:22:19 +0530
VERSUS
1. GAJENDER SAWHNEY
S/o Sh. Ram Sugarat Sawhney
R/o H.No. Vill. Mohammedpur Alam,
Mujafarpur, Bihar.
At present :-
R/o of House of Sh. Desraj
Village Begumpur Khatola,
Tehsil Sohna, Distt. Gurgaon.(Driver).
2. PAWAN ANAND
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o Vill. Sarhaul,
Tehsial and Dist. Gurgaon.
At present:-
R/o H.No.E-214, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. (Owner).
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Having its office at;
7E, Jhandewalan Extn.
New Delhi-1100055. (Insurer). .....Respondents
AWARD
1. This is a remand back matter. Vide order dated 23/01/2019, the Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi, directed this Tribunal with the following directions:-
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, this Court is of the view that Section 11 CPC is not applicable in the present context. The claimant Champa i.e. the appellant herein is claiming the MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 2/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:24 +0530 compensation for the first time and she has not filed petition seeking claim prior to filing the claim petition in Delhi. Therefore, the principle of res judicata is not applicable in the present context. The appellants are residing in Delhi. Accordingly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal.''
2. Brief facts of the present case are that a petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 06.04.2016 seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Ambika (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to a motor vehicular accident dated 19/09/2012. As per petition, on 19/09/2012 at about 11/10.15 P.M., when the deceased was going to his residence at Vill.Fazilpur, after closing his shop and reached near Pulia of Fazilpur a Truck bearing registration no. HR-55K-7195 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came from opposite side on wrong side of the road, in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner, driven by R-1 in a zig-zag manner and struck against the bicycle of Santosh and Sh. Santosh fell down and received grievous injuries on his person on all over his body. It is further stated that he was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon where he was declared brought dead and postmortem on his dead body was conducted in General Hospital, Gurgaon. An FIR no. 224/ 2022 PS Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, Haryana U/s 279/304A IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. As per petition, the deceased was 31 years old and was self employed and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 40 Lakhs in respect of the untimely MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney &Digitally Ors.signedPageby No. 3/25 PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:31 +0530 death of deceased in the abovesaid accident. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1 and R-2.
3. R-3/ Insurance Company filed a Written Statement wherein it denied the contents of petition. It is averred it is not liable to pay any compensation as it has already paid the compensation in case bearing MACT No. 252/12 before the Tribunal of Ld. PO MACT, Gurgaon, Haryana. However, it is admitted by R-3/ Insurance Company that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2. Also, it is submitted that if at all compensation is granted the interest may be granted from the filing of present petition and not from the filing of earlier petition.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 10/04/2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Santosh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 19.09.2012 at about 10.10/15 P.M involving vehcile bearing registration No. HR-55K-7195 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney &Digitally Ors. signed Page No. 4/25 PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:35 +0530 owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
5. In support of their contentions, the Petitioner No. 1 who is wife of the deceased has examined herself as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased lost his life on 19/09/2012 due to an accident involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was 31 years old and was self employed and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month from his business. She further deposed that the petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased, were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She relied upon following documents :-
"Photocopy of claim before MACT, Gurugram is de- exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'A'; Photocopy of award dated 25.05.2013 by Lok Adalat Gurugram is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'B';MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 5/25 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:40 +0530 Photocopy of Ration Card is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'C';
Photocopy of birth certificates of minor children are de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'D';
Photocopy of family register is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'E';
Photocopy of residential proof of petitioners are de-exhibited and same are now marked as Mark 'F' (colly);
Photocopy of identity proof of the petitioners are Ex. PW-1/7(colly);
Photocopy of FIR dated 20.09.2012 is de- exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'G';
Photocopy of identity proof of the driver is de- exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'H';
Photocopy of insurance papers is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'J';
Photocopy of postmortem report of deceased is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'K'; and MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 6/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:46 +0530 Photocopy of FIR No. 1349/15 dated 23.10.2015 is de-exhibited and same is now marked as Mark 'L'.'' 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents. In her cross-examination she deposed that she is doing household work. She further deposed that she had no information about the claim petition of Gurugram until it was informed to her by the cousin brother of her husband. She further deposed that she had filed an application before the concerned Tribunal regarding commission of fraud against her. She denied the suggestion that her in-laws informed her regarding the claim. She further denied the suggestion that she has filed a false case against the respondents to get the compensation from the Insurance Company.
5.2 Petitioners' evidence was then closed.
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney &Digitally Ors. signed Page No. 7/25 PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:22:50 +0530 ISSUE NO. 1 "Whether the petitioner Sh. Santosh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 19.09.2012 at about 10.10/15 P.M involving vehcile bearing registration No. HR-55K-7195 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP''.
9. 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 that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 8/25 Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27
13:22:55 +0530
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined PW-1 Ms. Champa who is wife of the deceased. PW-1 deposed vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A. She categorically stated that the relevant date, time and place, when the deceased was going to his residence at Vill.Fazilpur, after closing his shop and reached near Pulia of Fazilpur a Truck bearing registration no. HR-55K-7195 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came from opposite side on wrong side of the road, in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner, driven by R-1 in a zig-zag manner and struck against the bicycle of Santosh and Sh. Santosh fell down and received grievous injuries on his person on all over his body. It is further stated that he was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon where he was declared brought dead and postmortem on his dead body was conducted in General Hospital, Gurgaon.She was cross-examined by all the respondents but nothing favourable to the respondents came in the cross examination of this witness. As such, the testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The petitioners have filed the certified copy of the record of charge-sheet obtained from Gurgaon Court. It is not denied that R- 1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279//304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender SawhneyDigitally & Ors. signed Page No. 9/25 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.27 13:22:59 +0530 sheet, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle, and Postmortem Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. 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 PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle being driven by R-1 rashly and negligently.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the deceased at the relevant time. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the Digitally signed MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 10/25 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.08.27 13:23:04 +0530 part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
15. In view of the contents of the FIR as well as the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 11/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:23:09 +0530 death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
18. The compensation received by the Jethani of the Petitioner No. 1 by misrepresenting herself as Champa alongwith her in laws is subject matter of FIR No. 1349/2015 PS Gurgaon City. The present petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased namely Champa in the year 2016. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case where Petitioner No.1 Champa was prevented by her Jethani and in laws from obtaining compensation in the earlier petition, the petitioners are held entitled for interest on the compensation from the date of filing of previous petition.
18.1 The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Smt. Champa as PW-1. PW-1 has deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 30 years old, was self employed and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 12/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:23:14 +0530 earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an Unskilled-Person in Gurgaon at the time of accident i.e. 19/09/2012 were Rs.4,967.29/- per month.
20. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of postmortem report of deceased Mark A. As per said document the age of deceased was 33 years as on the date of accident. 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 '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
21. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his widow and three children. Accordingly, the widow and 03 children of the deceased shall be treated as dependents of the deceased.
22. Irrespective of this, 1/4th of the 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 MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney &Digitally byOrs.
PANKAJ Page No. 13/25signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.27 13:23:22 +0530 assumed that the age of deceased was 33 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.
23. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.10,01,406/- (rounded off) (Rs.4,967.29/- X 140/100 X 3/4 X 12 X 16). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
24. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- 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 also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 44,000/- Parental Consortium : Rs. 1,32,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 3) MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 14/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:23:27 +0530
25. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,16,000/-(Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 1,76,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
26. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.12,17,406/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred and Six Only) (Rs.10,01,406/- + Rs. 2,16,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of earlier petition i.e. 30/11/2012. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable. The Petitioner No. 1 shall have the share of 70% in the award amount whereas the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 shall have share of 10% in the award amount alongwith accrued interest.
RELEASE
27. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
27.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 70 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 70 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 15/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.08.27 13:23:33 +0530 Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,53,237/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Seven Only ) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
27.2 Rs.2,36,177/- each be kept in FDRs in the name of petitioners No. 2 to 4 till they attain majority with cumulative interest. On attaining majority, the bank shall release the interest portion to petitioners No. 2 to 4 by transferring the same to their savings bank accounts as and when they furnish the details of their bank accounts which are near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal and the principal amount of Rs. 2,36,177/- each be kept in 23 FDRs of Rs.
10,000/- each for a period of 1 month to 23 months with cumulative interest in the name of Petitioners No. 2 to 4 respectively.
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 16/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:23:38 +0530
28. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
29. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 17/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:01 +0530 holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021.
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors.signed Digitally Pageby No. 18/25 PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:07 +0530 Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put Digitally signed up the same on 27.09.2024. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:12 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA On this 27.08.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/27/08/2024 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 19/09/2012
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Santosh Kumar
3. Age of the deceased : 33 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Self Employed MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 19/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:15 +0530
5. Income of the deceased : As per the minimum wages prevailing in Haryana at the relevant time of an Unskilled Person
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relatio
n
(1) Smt. Champa 33 Years Wife of
the
deceased
(2) Munni 15 Years Daughter
of the
deceased
(3) Chunni 15 Years Daughter
of the
deceased
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors.Digitally Pagesigned No. by20/25 PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:20 +0530 (3) Jitender 12 Years Son of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs.4,967.29/- per month deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 40.00% (B)
9. Less-Personal 1/4th deduction has been expenses of the done deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.5,215.6545/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.62,587.854/-
dependency (Dx12) MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 21/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:25 +0530
12. Multiplier(E) '16'
13. Total loss of Rs.10,01,406/- (rounded dependency off) (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for Rs. 1,76,000/-
loss of consortium(H)
16. Compensation for NIL loss of love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for Rs. 20,000/-
loss of estate(J)
18. Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 22/25
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27
13:24:37 +0530
19.
TOTAL Rs.12,17,406/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF 8%
INTEREST
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to Rs.11,44,362/- (rounded
the date of award(M) off)
22.
Total amount Rs.23,61,768/-
including interest(L +
M)
23.
Award amount P-1 : Rs.2,53,237/-
released
24.
Award amount kept As per award
in FDRs
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 23/25
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27
13:24:42 +0530
25.
Mode of Mentioned in the award
disbursement of the
award amount to the
petitioner (s)
MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 24/25
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27
13:24:48 +0530
26.
Next date for 27/09/2024
compliance of the
award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 27.08.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 27.09.2024.
Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:53 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/27.08.2024 MACT No. 110/19 Champa & Ors Vs. Gajender Sawhney & Ors. Page No. 25/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.08.27 13:24:57 +0530