Delhi District Court
Dev Kanya & Ors. vs . Mohd. Muneer & Ors. on 16 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEV KANYA & ORS. VS. MOHD. MUNEER & ORS.
DAR NO. 588/2016
1. Smt. Dev Kanya (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Singh
2. Sh. Balram Singh (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Singh
3. Sh. Bal Krishan Singh (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Singh
All the petitioners are permanent resident
of Hardawan, Fatehpur, Ahmadpur,
Kusumbha, Uttar Pradesh-212641.
.......Petitioners being LRs of
deceased Sh. Ghanshyam Singh
Versus
1. Mohd. Muneer (Driver of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Afzal
R/o P-303, Basti Khawaja Meerdard,
Barron Road, Minto Road, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Virender Chaudhary (Superdar/SPA Holder/purchaser)
S/o Sh. R.A. Chaudhary,
R/o B-81, Zaidi Gali, Mandawali, Delhi-110092.
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.1 of 25
3. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
12th Floor, Dr. Gopaidass Bhawan,
28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. Sh. Chander Dev Mahto (Registered owner)
S/o Sh. Ansari Mahto,
R/o 3/243, Trilok Puri, Delhi-110091.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 15.10.2016
Date of framing of issues : 16.02.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 21.01.2023
Date of decision : 16.02.2023
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Ghanshyam Singh in a road accident that took place on 09.09.2016 at about 11 am, at Rajaji Marg, Krishna Menon Lane Crossing, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.45/16, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS South Avenue. The vehicle involved in this case is an auto bearing registration No. DL-1RP-5855, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1), alleged to have purchased by respondent no. 2 (R2), insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) and owned by respondent no. 4 (R4).
2. The claimants are the wife and sons of the deceased. Succinctly put, facts of case, as per DAR, are that on the above said date and time, the deceased Sh. Ghanshyam Singh was coming on bicycle from Navy Chief DAR No. 588/16 Page no.2 of 25 Bunglaw and was going towards Krishna Menon Lane. While crossing Rajaji Marg on the correct side of the road, all of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RP-5585, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, came and hit the cycle of deceased and dragged him along with his cycle for a distance of 30 to 35 feet due to which the deceased fell down on the road and received multiple injuries all over his body. It is further stated that after the accident, the deceased was removed to Dr. RML Hospital where he was declared as 'brought dead' by the doctors.
3. R-1 and R-2 have not filed written statement either to the DAR or to the claim petition.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed its reply wherein it is stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured w.e.f. 23.06.2016 to 22.06.2017.
5. Respondent no. 4/registered owner has filed its reply wherein it is stated that there was no negligence on his part as he has already sold the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RP-5855 to the other person and hence, he has no concerned with the said vehicle. It is further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the claimants with the connivance of the police officials. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
6. On 16.02.2017, the following issues were framed by this tribunal:-
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in an DAR No. 588/16 Page no.3 of 25 accident that took place on 09.09.2016 at about 11 am, Rajaji Marg, Krishna Menon Lane Crossing, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-
1RP-5855 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.
7. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 30.01.2019, Sh. Chander Dev Mehto was impleaded as respondent no. 4/registered owner in the present matter and thereafter, vide order dated 10.07.2019, the issue no.1 earlier framed on 16.02.2017 was modified and in place of earlier issue no. 1, the amended/modified issue no. 1 was framed as under :-
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.09.2016 at about 11 am, Rajaji Marg, Krishna Menon Lane Crossing, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-
1RP-5855 driven by respondent no. 1, purchased and possessed by respondent no. 2, insured with respondent no. 3 and registered in the name of respondent no. 4 ? OPP.
8. The Tribunal has heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Sanjeev Malik, Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Ms. Kanta Choudhary, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 and Sh. Pushpinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/Insurance Company, however, none is appearing on behalf of R-4 DAR No. 588/16 Page no.4 of 25 since long. The Tribunal has perused the entire record, including written arguments and case laws filed on behalf of parties.
9. Now, the Tribunal proceeds to give findings on the issues framed in the succeeding paragraphs:
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.09.2016 at about 11 am, Rajaji Marg, Krishna Menon Lane Crossing, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-
1RP-5855 being driven by respondent no. 1, purchased and possessed by respondent no. 2, insured with respondent no. 3 and registered in the name of respondent no. 4 ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RP-5855. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined on record Constable Vikram Bunkar as PW2 who deposed that on the date of accident, he was on VVIP duty regarding PM route at Rajaji Marg, New Delhi and was standing on the corner of Kothi No. 2, Akbar Road. He further deposed that at about 11 am, he saw one person coming from Krishna Menon Lane on his bicycle and when he was crossing the road at Rajaji Marg Crossing, one TSR bearing registration No. DL-1RP-5585 came from the Navy Chief Sahab Bungalow towards the DAR No. 588/16 Page no.5 of 25 crossing of Rajaji Marg and hit the cycle of deceased with great force and dragged him along with the cycle for 30-35 feet. He further deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of TSR.
During cross examination, he deposed that there is crossing at the place of accident and the cyclist had already crossed the middle of the road when TSR hit him from front side. He further deposed that there was no red light at the spot of accident.
As per the charge-sheet, PW2 Constable Vikram is the informant/complainant of the present accident and he is also cited as eye witness of the prosecution, so his testimony inspires confidence of the Tribunal and his presence at the place of incident is not under dispute.
10. Respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A. During cross examination, he admitted that the criminal case for rash and negligent driving is pending before the concerned Ld. MM and he was arrested and released on bail in the said case. He further admitted that he has not filed any complaint regarding his false implication in the present matter.
11. Respondent no. 2 has examined himself as R2W2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A and relied upon the copy of his driving license as Ex. R2W1/1, copy of GPA executed by Chander Dev Mahto in his favour as Ex. R2W1/2 and copy of sale agreement as Ex. R2W1/3. During cross examination, he admitted that he had engaged the respondent no. 1/driver after seeing his driving license and badge, however he has not filed any verification report from any transport DAR No. 588/16 Page no.6 of 25 authority regarding the authenticity of driving license of driver. He further admitted that Sh. Chander Dev Mehto, registered owner had sold the vehicle to him on 25.07.2015, i.e. prior to the date of accident. He volunteered that the respondent no. 1 was driving the TSR on hire basis during day time and he was driving it during night time.
12. Reliance has been further placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that "......filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
13. 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 and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.7 of 25
14. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1RP- 5585 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, purchased and possessed by respondent no. 2, insured with respondent no. 3 and registered in the name of respondent no. 4. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
15. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(I) Loss of dependency
16. The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Dev Kanya, wife of deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased husband was working as Supervisor of Labour with a contractor in Delhi and was earning more than Rs. 17,500/- per month. During cross examination, she admitted that her deceased husband was working under a contractor Subhash and doing some supervisory work, but she is not aware about exact DAR No. 588/16 Page no.8 of 25 nature of work.
17. In order to prove the employment and salary of deceased, the petitioners have examined on record one Sh. Subhash Chander Singh, Proprietor of registered firm M/s Chandra Enterprises from the office of deceased who deposed that the deceased was working as a Supervisor with their firm having permanent job and was on pay roll duly prepared by their firm. He has placed on record one application for allotment of registration number showing license number and date issued by the Sales Tax Department as Ex. PW3/1 (colly), certificate dated 16.10.2015 duly issued from the office of Executive Engineers (P) NDZ-VIII, CPWD, East Block- III, Level V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi regarding modification of tendering limit and change of category of his firm valid upto 31.03.2018 as Ex. PW3/2 (colly) and photocopy of statement of salary/wages paid to the different employees accordingly to their category for the months of June to September, 2016 as Ex. PW3/3 (colly) bearing his signatures in token of attestation.
During cross examination, he deposed that the deceased was working with their firm since eight months before the accident. He further deposed that he has not produced any record of permanent employment of deceased and even their firm has not issued any permanent letter to the deceased.
18. Perusal of aforesaid documents reveals that the deceased was working with M/s Chandra Enterprises under semi skilled category and was drawing wage of Rs. 407/- per day. Therefore, considering the aforesaid documents coupled with the testimony of PW3, it is established on record that the deceased was getting daily wage of Rs. 407/- and hence, his DAR No. 588/16 Page no.9 of 25 monthly salary comes out to be Rs. 12,210/-.
19. Further, PW1 has claimed in her affidavit that her deceased husband was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. In order to prove the same, PW1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ex. PW1/3 in which his date of birth is found recorded as 02.05.1970. Hence, going by the Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/3, the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. on 09.09.2016 was about 46 years, 4 months and 7 days. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '13' is applicable in the present case.
20. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the DAR has been filed by three petitioners being wife and sons of the deceased. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), one third earning of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to addition of 25% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was not having any permanent job and was aged between 40 to 50 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss DAR No. 588/16 Page no.10 of 25 of dependency in the present case is calculated to be Rs.15,87,300/- (Rs. 12,210/- X 12 X 2/3 X 13 X 125/100).
(II) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
22. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
23. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years have already elapsed since the deceased had expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 3 + 10% of 1,20,000 = 1,32,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
24. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held DAR No. 588/16 Page no.11 of 25 entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,52,300/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Three Hundred only) (Rs. 15,87,300/- + 1,65,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
25. All the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, out of the awarded amount, 60% amount is being awarded to the petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and remaining 20% share each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2 and 3, i.e. sons of the deceased.
RELEASE
26. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 40% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 37616303130, having IFSC Code SBIN0003243 and PAN No. DRSPK3524B, being maintained DAR No. 588/16 Page no.12 of 25 with State Bank of India, Dhata, District Fatehpur, U.P. and the remaining 60% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
Entire share of petitioner no. 2 is directed to be released in his saving bank account bearing No. 36237939896, having IFSC Code SBIN0003243 and PAN No. HNKPS3728B, being maintained with State Bank of India, Dhata, District Fatehpur, U.P. through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
Entire share of petitioner no. 3 is directed to be released in his saving bank account bearing No. 14170100021480, having IFSC Code BARB0DHATAX and PAN No. KMZPS3048R, being maintained with Bank of Baroda, Dhata, District Fatehpur, U.P. through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
27. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the saving bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
28. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND DAR No. 588/16 Page no.13 of 25 through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
29. 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.
30. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of petitioner.
31. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
32. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
33. 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.
34. 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 above.
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.14 of 25
LIABILITY
35. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submitted that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time of accident.
In order to prove the same, the Insurance Company has examined on record one Sh. Santoshi Lal, LDC from Transport Authority, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi as R3W1 who has produced a letter given by MLO of their authority regarding verification of license no. DL0620050102000 in the name of respondent no. 1 Mohd. Muneer as Ex. R3W1/1, application form for renewal of driving license along with application-cum-declaration, medical certificate and certificate of Driving Training Institute, Burari, Delhi as Ex. R3W1/2 (colly) and copy of driving license of respondent no. 1 along with fee receipt, extract of driving license along with details of driving license as Ex. R3W1/3 (colly). He deposed that as per record, the driving license of respondent no. 1 Mohd. Muneer was not valid for commercial vehicles on the date of accident as his commercial license was expired on 12.07.2014 which was renewed only on 24.01.2018 with late fee of Rs. 2650/-.
36. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for claimants has argued that the deceased was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. In order to substantiate his above claim, Ld. Counsel for claimants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in cases National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivani & Ors., 2019 LawSuit(Del) 1727, decided on 24.04.2019 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhan DAR No. 588/16 Page no.15 of 25 Laxmi & Ors., 2021 LawSuit(Del) 1703, decided on 01.10.2021 ; Mahesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd. & Anr., 2021 LawSuit(Del) 1425, decided on 12.08.2021 ; upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in case Bhagyalata Bora & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LawSuit(Gau) 191, decided on 17.03.2022 ; upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in cases Savitri Vs. Kalkayya, 2019 LawSuit(Kar) 1164, decided on 04.02.2019 and Kiran Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 LawSuit (Kar) 3267, decided on 12.12.2018.
37. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Shivani & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was held as under :-
6. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contends that the impugned order has erred insofar it has awarded compensation for injury being caused by a vehicle, which was being driven by a person, who did not possess a valid driving licence. The driver was authorized only to drive a 'LMV-NT & motorcycle' (Light Motor Vehicle, non-
transport and Motorcycle). However, the impugned order has dealt with the issue as under:-
"29..........A person having DL for LMV is competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle irrespective of whether it is being driven for private or commercial purposes. Same was the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Devangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2017 (7) SCC 731. In the present case as well, admittedly respondent No. 1 was having valid driving licence for driving LMV. Though, he was not having licence for driving the commercial vehicle but-it is a difference which is purely technical in nature. No special techniques were required for driving this light motor vehicle merely because it was a commercial vehicle. Thus, DAR No. 588/16 Page no.16 of 25 Insurance Company has failed to prove its defence regarding driving licence of respondent No.1."
Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case Dhan Laxmi & Ors. (Supra), wherein it was held as under :-
".....9. Insofar as the second ground taken by the appellant; that the Tribunal has erred in not granting recovery rights to the appellant as the driver as not holding a valid driving license is concerned, it is noticed that the Tribunal has considered the said aspect and held that the driver of the offending vehicle was in fact holding a valid driving license and was competent to drive the category of vehicle...."
The Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in case Bhagyalata Bora (Supra) has held as under:-
".....13. .......As per para-51 in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), his license was a valid license, which enabled him to drive a LMV, which included a transport vehicle, i.e. auto rickshaw."
Reliance has also been placed upon the law on the point laid down in judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, decided on 03.07.2017 wherein it was held as under :-
"....46 (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light DAR No. 588/16 Page no.17 of 25 motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f.
14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.
38. Ld. Counsel for claimants has placed on record one letter dated 16.04.2018 issued by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways regarding compliance of judgment dated 03.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mukund Devagan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil DAR No. 588/16 Page no.18 of 25 Appeal No. 5826 of 2011, wherein it is mentioned as under :-
"3. In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain the transport license would arise in case of medium/heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purposes. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles :-
(i) Motor cycle without gear
(ii) Motorcycle with gear
(iii) Light Motor Vehicle (goods/passenger)
(iv) e-rickshaw/e-cart
39. Perusal of documents Ex. R3W1/3 (colly) reveal that the respondent no. 1 was holding driving license which is valid for non transport w.e.f. 17.06.2008 to 16.06.2028 and for transport, it was valid w.e.f. 24.01.2018 to 23.01.2021, as per extracts of driving license. However, during investigation, IO has verified and filed the driving license of driver/respondent no. 1 along with final report wherein the issue date is 26.06.2014 and its validity is till 25.06.2017 authorizing to drive LMVCOM, 3W-TSR, M-CYL and LMV-NT.
40. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Tribunal is of the considered view that the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no. 3. being insurer of DAR No. 588/16 Page no.19 of 25 offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
41. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
42. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
43. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
44. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.20 of 25
1. Date of the accident 09.09.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the NA
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 15.10.2016
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the No
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company submitted his No
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer not filed.
of the offer of the Insurance
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.21 of 25
Company.
14. Date of the award 16.02.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of Yes
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(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 12.03.2018
issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant (s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the 18.09.2018
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Hardawan, Fatehpur, Claimant(s) Ahmadpur, Kusumbha, U.P.-212641.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.22 of 25
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition? Yes
45. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 21.03.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 16.02.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV DAR No. 588/16 Page no.23 of 25 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 09.09.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Ghanshyam Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 46 years, 4 months and 7 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Pvt. Job
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 12,210/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Dev Kanya 48 years Wife
(ii) Sh. Balram Singh 26 years Son
(iii) Sh. Bal Krishan 24 years Son
Singh
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased Rs.12,210/-
(A)
8 Add-Future Prospects Rs.3052.5/-
(B)
9 Less-Personal expenses Rs.5,087.5/-
of the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.10,175/-
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of Rs.1,22,100/-
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 13
13 Total loss of Rs.15,87,300/-
dependency
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.24 of 25
15 Compensation for loss Nil
of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss Rs.1,32,000/-
of consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss Rs.16,500.00
of estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500.00
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.17,52,300/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED DAR till the date of award to be
deposited within 30 days and 9%
thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to Rs.8,33,542.71/-
the date of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs. 25,85,842.71/- (rounded off
interest (L+M) to Rs. 25,86,000/-)
23 Award amount released P-1 = 60% share
P-2 = Entire share
P-3 = Entire share
24 Award amount kept in P-1 = 40% share
FDRs/ MACAD P-2 = Nil
P-3 = Nil
25 Mode of disbursement Through bank
of the award amount to
claimant(s)
26 Next date for 21.03.2023
compliance of the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
16.02.2023
DAR No. 588/16 Page no.25 of 25