Delhi District Court
Smt. Babita Swin vs Sh. Virender Sharma @ Babby on 3 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST-01):DELHI
MACT Case No.485/18
1. Smt. Babita Swin
W/o Late Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin
2. Ms. Archana Swain
D/o Late Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin
3. Vikas
S/o Late Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin
All R/o WZ-341, Basai Darapur, Delhi-110015
.....Claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Virender Sharma @ Babby
S/o Sh. Balbir Sharma
R/o H. No. 186 Village Ram Nagar,
Khaguwala PS Thakurdwara
District Muradabad, UP
2. Sh. Hari Ram
S/o Sh. Ram Parshad
R/o Village Ram Nagar,
Khaguwala PS Thakurdwara
District Muradabad, UP
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
SCO-47, First Floor, Sector 47-D,
Chandigarh, Punjab
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 09.07.2018
Date of reserving order/judgment : 22.03.2019
Date of pronouncement: : 03.04.2019
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 1/19
AWARD
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 04.05.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident 07.05.2018 by the Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident 06.06.2018 by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Date not mentioned Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 09.07.2018 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the 09.07.2018 Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the 09.07.2018 claimant (s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the ---
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified Yes the documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or The accident in question took deficiency on the part of the place on 04.05.2018 and the Investigating Officer ? If so, DAR was filed on 09.07.2018 whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Legal offer was not filed by the Designated Officer by the insurance company MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 2/19 Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact Not mentioned number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of Reply has been filed on record the Insurance Company submitted by the insurer on 16.08.2018 his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company No admitted the 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 No deficiency 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 Legal offer has not given by the
(s) to the offer of the Insurance insurer Company.
18. Date of the award 03.04.2019
19. Whether the award was passed Yes with the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant 09.07.2018
(s) were directed to 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.
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 3/1922. Date on which the claimant(s) 03.04.2019 produced the 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 R/o WZ-341, Basai Darapur, the Claimant(s). Delhi-110015
24. Details of savings bank account(s) The petitioner no. 1 is having of the claimant(s) and the address A/c bearing No. of the bank with IFSC Code. 600810110009772 of Bank of India, B/3, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 IFSC Code: BKID0006008 The petitioner No.2 has undertaken to place on record copy of her bank passbook having the necessary endorsement in accordance with MCTAP within 15 days from today.
The petitioner No.3 Vikas is having A/c No. 600810110009752 of Bank of India, B/3, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 IFSC Code: BKID0006008
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account (s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, ADJ/MACT/Parking Account of IFSC Code, name and branch of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as the bank of the Claims Tribunal in informed by the Chief Manager, MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 4/19 which the award amount is to be SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi deposited/transfered. MICR:- 110002126, IFSC Code:- SBIN0000726
1. Vide this Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide the present DAR which has arisen out of the FIR Bearing No. 154/18 dated 04.05.2018 u/s 279/304A of IPC. As per the abovesaid FIR, the deceased Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin sustained fatal injuries in the accident which is the subject matter of the abovesaid FIR. No claim petition has been filed by the petitioners.
2. Brief facts, as are culled out from the DAR filed by the IO are that on 04.05.2018 at about 4 PM, the deceased Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin met with an accident which took place in front of Amaze Restaurant Rama Road, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. It has been further stated that the said accident was caused by the respondent no.1 while driving the Truck bearing No. HR55L-7145 in a rash and negligent. It has been further stated that after the accident, the deceased was taken to Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It has been further stated that in the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question.
3. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioner, FIR No. 154/2018 dated 04.05.2018; P. S. Kirti Nagar , u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1. The FIR has been lodged at the instance of one Sh. Anil Kumar, who has stated in the FIR that he saw the accident in question with his naked eyes. Sh. Anil Kumar has been examined by the petitioners as an eye witness in the form of PW-2.
4. IO has also filed the post mortem report of the deceased bearing PM No. 716/2018 dated 05.05.2018 of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi wherein, the cause of death has been mentioned as "haemorrhagic shock consequent upon blunt force trauma to the chest and abdomen. All injuries are ante mortem, fresh in duration and are possible in road traffic accident".
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 5/195. As stated herein above, statement of facts/Claim petition has not been separately filed by the petitioners but PW-1 who is the wife of the deceased in para no. 4 of her affidavit has stated that her deceased husband was working as a Plumber in Private Sector and earning Rs.23,000/- per month.
6. As per the DAR, the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
7. The petitioner No.1 who is the wife of the deceased in para no. 9 of her affidavit has claimed a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Only) on account of compensation.
8. Reply/Written statement has been jointly filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 stating therein that the respondent no.1 has not caused the said accident. It has been further stated that the respondents no.1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the present matter. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle at the time of accident. It has been further stated that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55-L7145 was duly insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 231301/31/2018/3933 for the period from 11.10.2017 to 10.10.2018. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
9. Reply to the DAR has also been filed by the insurance company admitting therein that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55L-7145 was insured with it vide policy bearing no. 231031/31/2018/3933 for the period from 11.10.2017 to 10.10.2018 in the name of Sh. Hari Ram. It has been further stated that the liability of the insurance company is however, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
10. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 05.11.2018:-
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 6/191. Whether the deceased Gagan Bhari suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 04.05.2018 at about 4 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. HR-55L-7145 by the respondent no.1. Sh.
Virender Sharma, being owned by the respondent no.2 and isnured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
11. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners has examined the petitioner No.1 Smt. Babita Swin as PW-1 and in her evidence by way of affidavit, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present DAR. She has filed on record her affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, the photocopy of the Aadhar card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1; the photocopy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/2; the photocopy of Aadhar Card of her daughter as Ex. PW1/3 and photocopy of Aadhar card of her son as Ex. PW1/4.
12. In the cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2, PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that she has no document to prove that her husband was a plumber. PW-1 has also admitted it to be correct that she does not have any document to show the income of deceased as Rs.23,000/- per month. PW-1 has further stated that her husband was not an income tax assessee. PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that she has not placed any document with regard to the expenses incurred on the last rites and transportation of the dead body of the deceased. PW-1 has further stated that she is a housewife. PW-1 has further stated that both of her children are studying. PW-1 has further stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 7/1913. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-1 has stated that she has no documentary proof to show that Rs.50000/- were spent on cremation, funeral rights and transportation of the dead body of the deceased as alleged in para no. 3 of his affidavit. PW-1 has further stated that she has no documentary proof to show the contention that her late husband was a plumber by profession and was working in private sector or was earning Rs.23,000/- per month.
14. The petitioners have further examined Sh. Anil Kumar, the eye witness to the accident in question as PW-2. PW-2 has stated that he does not remember the exact date or month but in the year 2018, when the IPL matches were going on, he alongwith his friend Sh. Manish Sharma were standing at a chowk at Amaze Restaurant, Kirti Nagar and at that time, he saw that a truck, whose number he did not remember at that stage which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed came from Mayapuri Chowk towards Moti Nagar side and the said truck hit a cyclist. PW-2 has further stated that just after hitting, the truck driver stopped the truck and fled from the spot. PW-2 has further stated that the injured was badly crushed under the wheel of the truck and he himself alongwith his friend after extracting the injured from the truck, took him to Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar in a battery rickshaw. PW-2 has further stated that he got admitted the injured in the hospital and he gave a call at 100 number and he also called the family of the injured from his mobile. PW-2 has further stated that he does not remember the name of the injured. PW-2 has further stated that the injured was declared brought dead by the doctors. PW-2 has further stated that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver.
15. In the cross-examination done by ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 1& 2, PW-2 has stated that there was a divider between the road. PW-2 has further stated that the deceased was riding on his bicycle besides the divider. PW-2 has further stated that they were standing on the road 4-5 patches just before the red MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 8/19 light and he was smoking at that time. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that statement of his friend namely Sh. Manish Sharma was not recorded by the police.
16. In the cross-examination done by ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-2 has stated that he was standing near divider, opposite the road where the accident in question took place. PW-2 has further stated that however, at the time of the accident, deceased was standing with the divider of the road. PW-2 has further stated that there was no other vehicle standing stationary along with the cycle at the place of accident.
17. The respondents have not led any evidence in their defence.
18. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioners have also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioners under MCTAP as well.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. (I)
19. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 140 & 166 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
20. The petitioners have examined the eye witness to the abovesaid accident namely Sh. Anil Kumar as PW-2. PW-2 has been cross-examined by the respondents in detail but to my mind, even in the cross examination, so far as the material particulars of the accident in question are concerned, PW-2 has stuck to the point that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1.
21. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, they have utterly failed to prove on record that the MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 9/19 accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence of the respondent no.1.
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No. 154/2018 dated 04.05.2018; P. S. Kirti Nagar, u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
23. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
24. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE NO. (ii)
25. The petitioner no.1 has filed on record the photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deceased in the form of ex. PW1/1. In Ex. PW1/1, the birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1973. The date of accident is 04.05.2018. Even in the PM Report, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 45 years but as per the photocopy of Nigmananda High School Rahama, P.O. Babar, District Kendrapara, Pin-754245 filed by the petitioners themselves, the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 24.10.1966. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is taken as 52 years on the date of accident as per the certificate issued by aforesaid school and filed by the petitioners themselves.
26. In the claim petition, the petitioner no.1 in her affidavit has claimed that the deceased was working as a Plumber in Private Sector and earning MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 10/19 Rs.23,000/- per month but in the cross-examination, the petitioner No.1 has stated that she has no documentary proof to show that her late husband was a plumber by profession and was working in private sector or he was earning Rs.23,000/- per month.
27. As such, to my mind, the petitioners have utterly failed to prove on record the income of the deceased.
28. As such, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an Unskilled person. The date of accident is 04.05.2018 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs.13,896/- per month (as per notification dated 04.04.2018 bearing Notification No. F.No.12(142)/02/MW/VII/201 of Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi).
29. The petitioners have been examined on 03.04.2019 under MCTAP and their statements have also been considered by this Tribunal.
30. In the DAR, it has been mentioned that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, the petitioners No.2 & 3 are the children of the deceased.
31. Accordingly, all the three petitioners are to be taken as dependents upon the deceased.
32. 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', the deceased might have been spending one- third of Rs. 13,896/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind only three dependents on the deceased. Therefore, after deducting one-three towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to Rs. 9264/- =( Rs. 13,896/- less Rs. 4632).
33. 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. Pranay Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 11/19
(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, 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."
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 12/19The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. vs. Pooja & ors decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
Going by the ratio of the abovestated two authorities, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the injured which is 52 years in the case in hand, accordingly, the multiplier of 11 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
An addition of 10% on account of the future prospects has to be given as the age of the injured was 52 years. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured has to be calculated as Rs.10,190/- (Rs.9264/- + Rs.926/- (after rounding off Rs.926.4/-) which is 10% of Rs.9264/-).
The appropriate multiplier applicable is '11' ( for the age group of 51 years to 55 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 13,45,080/- = (Rs. 10,190x12 x 11).
34. 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.
35. In view of the abovesaid judgment, I hereby award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
36. Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs.14,15,080/-
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 13/19(Rupees Fourteen Lacs Fifteen Thousand and Eighty Only) = (Rs. 13,45,080/- + Rs. 70,000/-) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.3
37. I award Rs.14,15,080/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Fifteen Thousand and Eighty 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. 09.07.2018 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, the wife of the deceased shall have 60% share in the award amount and the petitioner No.2 & 3 who are the children of the deceased shall have 20% each share in the award amount.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
38. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
39. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.14,15,080/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Fifteen Thousand and Eighty Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 14/19 of Rs. 1,55,080/-(Rupees One Lac Fifty Five Thousand and Eighty Only) shall be released to the petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased keeping in view the medical bills and submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
40. The rest of the amount of Rs. 12,60,000/- shall be kept in 126 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to one hundred and twenty six months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioners in their abovementioned shares. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
41. As stated herein above, since the petitioner no.3 Vikas is minor, the amount of his FDRs shall not be released until he reaches the age of majority.
42. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 15/19 bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
43. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
44. Since the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent No.3/Insurance company, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners in accordance with MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 16/19 their shares with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 15.05.2019.
A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioners free of cost.
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 File be consigned to Record Room. RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2019.04.09
16:24:05 +0530
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR )
On 3rd of April, 2019 P.O. MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (03.04.2019)
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 17/19
FORM -IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :- 04.05.2018
2. Name of the deceased :- Sh. Gagan Bihari Swin
3. Age of the deceased :- 52 years
4. Occupation of the deceased :- Private Service
5. Income of the deceased :- Rs.13,896/- as per Minimum Wages Act
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(I) Smt.Babita Swin DOB: Wife of the deceased
01.01.1981
(ii) Ms. Archana Swain DOB: Daughter of the deceased
06.10.1998
(iii) Vikas DOB: Son of the deceased
04.01.2003
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.13,896/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10%
9. Less-Personal expenses 1/3th has been deducted
of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.10,190/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,22,280/-
(Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) 11
MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 18/19
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.13,45,080/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.40,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/-
estate(I)
17. Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses(J)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.14,15,080/-
(F+G+H+I+J+=K)
19. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
20. Interest amount up to the Rs. 93,395.28 (8 months and 24 days) date of award (L)
21. Total amount including Rs.15,08,475.28 interest (K + L)
22. Award amount released Rs.1,55,080/-
23. Award amount kept in Rs.12,60,000/-
FDRs
24. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s).
25. Next date for compliance 15.05.2019 of the award (RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (03.04.2019) MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 19/19 New MACT Case No.485/18 03.04.2019 Present: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners along with petitioners in person.
File has been taken up at the request of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners as the liberty has been granted to the petitioner to get examined themselves in accordance with MCTAP on or before the date of the orders.
The petitioners have been examined under MCTAP. Now, to come up for orders at 4PM today itself.
( RAJ KUMAR )
Judge, MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (03.04.2019)
At 4:00 PM
Present: None
Award has been passed separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 15.05.2019.
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).
( RAJ KUMAR ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (03.04.2019) MACT Case No. 485/18 Page No. 20/19