Delhi District Court
Sanju Chaudhary vs Raman Kumar @ Raman Kant on 16 September, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No: 76520/2016
FIR No.538/14
PS Moti Nagar
1. Sanju Chaudhary
(Wife of deceased Constable Mana Ram)
2. Mayank Chaudhary (Minor)
(Son of deceased)
3. Smt.Dhapu Devi
(Mother of deceased)
W/o Gena Ram
4. Gena Ram
(Father of deceased)
S/o Budha Ram
5. Raju Devi
(Sister of deceased)
D/o Gena Ram
6. Kurma
(Sister of deceased)
D/o Gena Ram
All R/o H.No.207, Bekhalon ki Dhani,
Basani Lunakaran,
Tehsil: Merta, Distt. Nagaur,
Rajasthan
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Raman Kumar @ Raman Kant
S/o Sh.Nanhe Lal
R/o B36, Plot No.176177, Khasara No.83,
Ground Floor, Nathu Pura,
Ibrahim Pur, Delhi
(Driver)
2. Devender Chahal
S/o Sh.Dharampal Chaudhary
R/o C102, Shri Krishna Apartments,
2
Plot No.10, Sector5, Dwarka,
New Delhi
(Registered Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Div.No.10, Flat No.101106, N1,
BMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi
(Insurer) .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.08.2014
Date of conclusion of arguments : 06.09.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 16.09.2019
AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for death of Constable Mana Ram in a road vehicular accident that took place on 14.06.2014. FIR No.538/14 under Sections 302/186/353/109/34 IPC and Sections 132/179 of M.V. Act was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar and chargesheet was filed against Raman Kumar @ Raman Kant (Respondent No.1), driver of Ritz Car bearing registration No.DL2CAN5727 (offending vehicle).
2. Certified copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR, Site Plan, MLC etc. were filed by the petitioners.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the claim petition are that at about 07:30 PM on 14.06.2014, Ct. Mana Ram (since deceased) along with Ct.Naresh Kumar was on duty at Zakhira Flyover Traffic Diversion Picket and they were diverting traffic towards Anand Parbat, Moti Nagar. While they were performing their duty, the offending car which was being driven by respondent No.1/Raman Kumar with two other occupants, came there. When they were asked by Ct.Mana Rama and Ct.Naresh Kumar to take diversion and follow the traffic instructions, they refused to do so and started arguing with them. They also started abusing both of them. Thereafter, in a fit of anger, respondent 3 No.1/driver reversed his offending car and suddenly drove it towards Ct.Mana Ram and hit him with a great force, due to which Ct.Mana Ram fell on the bonnet of the car. Ct.Mana Ram tried to save his fall by holding the wiper, but respondent No.1/driver did not stop the car and started driving it in a zigzag manner. Resultantly, Ct.Mana Ram was thrown up in the air and fell on the road. Resultantly, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, Ct.Mana Ram was immediately removed to MGS Hospital for treatment where he was declared 'brought dead'.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2/Devender Chahal and insured with respondent No.3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
5. No Written Statement was filed by respondent No.1/driver and his defence was struck off vide order dated 20.04.2015 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal.
6. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2/owner, it was averred that as per the FIR, the respondent No.1/driver had killed the deceased after having entered into a verbal altercation with Ct.Mana Ram. Therefore, this was not a case of rash and negligent driving but of alleged murder. It was further stated that due to this reason, respondent No.2/owner cannot be held liable to pay any compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act.
7. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, it was averred that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 with intention to kill the deceased. It was, therefore, averred that deceased did not die due to road accident but he was murdered by respondent No.1/driver. It was further claimed that respondent No.1 was driving the alleged offending vehicle without any proper and valid driving licence. It was, however, admitted by respondent No.3 that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide its Policy bearing No.35101031136133168347 valid from 06.07.2013 to 05.07.2014.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2015:
41. Whether the deceased Constable Manaram suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 14.06.2014 at about 07:30 PM involving Ritz Car bearing No.DL2CAN5727 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form?
4. Relief.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
10. Since issue Nos.1 and 3 are interconnected, my findings on the same are as under:
1. Whether the deceased Constable Manaram suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 14.06.2014 at about 07:30 PM involving Ritz Car bearing No.DL2CAN5727 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/insurance company? OPP
3. Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form?
11. Since the present claim petition was filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
12. In support of their claim, petitioners examined Ct.Durga Prasad as PW1; ASI Ranbir Singh as PW2, Smt.Sanju Chaudhary, wife of deceased as PW3 and Ct.Naresh Kumar, an eyewitness to the accident as PW4.
13. PW4/Ct. Naresh Kumar at whose behest the FIR was registered, was an eye witness to the accident. He testified that between 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM on 14.06.2014, he was posted at Zakhira diversion point along with Ct. Mana Ram (deceased). During the said time, their duty was to divert traffic towards service road Zakhira. At about 07:30 PM, while they were performing their duty of diverting traffic by barricading, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL 5 2CAN5727 came from Rampura Punjabi Bagh side. There were three occupants in the car including the driver. The driver of the car wanted to use the flyover which was prohibited during the said time and accordingly, was refused by Ct.Mana Ram. He, thus, started arguing with Ct.Mana Ram. PW4/Ct.Naresh also testified that he had overheard the copassengers instigating the driver of the car to crush Ct.Mana Ram, in case they were not permitted to use the flyover. It was also testified by him that after the exchange of hot words, the driver of the car had warned Ct.Mana Ram to either allow him to use the flyover or else he would crush Ct.Mana Ram under his car. Thereafter, the driver of the car slightly reversed his car and then hit Ct.Mana Ram from front side with force. Due to the impact, Ct.Mana Ram fell on the bonnet of the car. However, to prevent falling from the bonnet of the car, Ct.Mana Ram held on to the bonnet/wiper of the car. The car driver then started driving in a zigzag manner with Ct.Mana Ram on the bonnet. In the meantime, a rickshaw puller and an auto driver also tried to stop the vehicle, but the driver continued to drive his car in a zigzag manner upto 150 meters. Ct.Mana Ram, thereafter, fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries as the car ran over Ct.Mana Ram. The driver of the car stopped his car just before the Zakhira Petrol Pump and fled from the spot.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that PW4/Ct.Naresh Kumar was neither cross examined by respondent No.1 nor by respondent No.2. He was only cross examined by the insurance company/respondent No.3 which very strenuously resisted the claim of the petitioners.
15. It was very vehemently argued by Ms.Geeta Malhotra, learned counsel for insurance company that it was apparent from the conduct of respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle that his intention was to cause murder of the deceased Ct.Mana Ram. Since, respondent No.1 used his car as a weapon to kill the deceased, the death of Ct.Mana Ram cannot be held to be an accidental death. It was also urged that the act of respondent No.1 was a felonious act where the death is caused with the criminal intent and motive to kill the deceased, therefore, it was a murder simplicitor and not accident under which the petitioners could claim compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act. It was further contended that since the petitioners had also failed to prove "rashness 6 and negligence" on the part of respondent No.1/driver, for that reason also, claim under Section 166 of M.V. Act must fail.
16. Per contra, the argument of insurance company was resisted by the learned counsel for petitioners by relying upon judgments titled as RITA DEVI VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 2000 ACJ 801; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. ALEXANDER M.P. CO.LTD. AND ORS., 2005 ACJ 1938 (DHC); MANJULA & ORS. VS. PAWAN KUMAR PATWARI & ORS., 2004 ACJ 230 (PATNA HIGH COURT); VIMAL KANWAR & ORS. VS. KISHORE DAN & ORS., 2013 ACJ 1441 (SC); UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. PATRICIA JEAN MAHAJAN & ORS., 2002, ACJ 1441 (SC); HELEN C.REBELLO & ORS. VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR., 1999 ACJ 10 (SC) and SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. GEETU & OTHER, 2019 ACJ 115 (DHC).
17. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the petitioners and insurance company, it is imperative to reproduce Section 165(1) of the M.V. Act which is as under: "165. Claims Tribunals. (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles"
includes claims for compensation under section 140 [and Section 163A]."
18. In the case of RITA DEVI (SUPRA), some passengers had hired an auto rickshaw which was never recovered and body of its driver was recovered by the police the next day. The legal representatives of the deceased claimed compensation under Section 163A for the death during the course of his employment as a death caused in accident arising out of the use of the vehicle. It was held by the learned Tribunal that death was caused by an accident within the purview of Motor Vehicles Act and it allowed compensation against the owner and insurer of the vehicle. However, Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati reversed the order by holding a different view. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the import of the words "death due to accident arising out of the 7 use of motor vehicle" was discussed and it was observed as follows: "10. The question, therefore, is: can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that "murder", as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But, there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident, and a 'murder' which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case (Rita Devi) also referred to the judgments of NISBET VS. RAYNE AND BURN (1910) 1 KB 689; CHALLIS VS. LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (1905) 2 KB 154 and observed as under: "In the case of Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689, where a cashier, while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer's workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held:
"That the murder was an 'accident' from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose 'out of' an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk, and consequently that the widow was entitled to compensation under under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. In this case, the court followed its earlier judgment in the case of Challis V. London and South Western Railway Company, (1905) 2 KB 154. In the case of Nisbet, the court also observed that it is contended by the employer that this was not an 'accident' within the meaning of the Act, because it was an intentional felonious act which caused the death, and that the word 'accident' negatives the idea of intention. In my opinion, this contention ought not to prevail. I think it was an accident from the point of view of Nisbet, and that it makes no difference whether the pistol shot was deliberately fired at Nisbet or whether it was intended for somebody else and not for Nisbet."
It was then held that "Applying the principles laid down in the above cases to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the deceased, a driver of the autorickshaw, was duty bound to have accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination. During the course of this duty, if the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the autorickshaw and in the course of achieving the said object of stealing the autorickshaw, they had to eliminate the driver of the autorickshaw then it cannot but be said that the death so caused to the driver of the autorickshaw 8 was an accidental murder. The stealing of the autorickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the autorickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of the autorickshaw. Therefore, it has to be said that on the facts and circumstances of this case the death of the deceased (Dasarath Singh) was caused accidentally in the process of committing the theft of the autorickshaw."
20. In a case titled as Kaushalya Bai & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Kirar & Ors. reported as I (2001) ACC 742 (DB), the deceased, who was serving as Forest Guard in the Forest Department, was performing his duty. The deceased intercepted a tractor trolley to check if it was carrying forest produce which were collected by committing theft in forest area. As soon as, he came in front of the tractortrolley to note down its registration number, the driver drove it on being instigated by an occupant of the tractor. Resultantly, the deceased Forest Guard suffered fatal injuries. The report of the incident was lodged and an FIR u/ss 302/34 IPC was registered and against the driver and occupant of the tractortrolley. A claim u/s 166 of M.V. Act was filed by the LRs of deceased to seek compensation for his death. Issue of maintainability was raised all the respondents. The Claims Tribunal without recording the evidence of the parties, allowed the objection taken by the respondents and dismissed the claim petition. When the order of the Claims Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon'ble Division Bench relied upon the case of RITA DEVI (SUPRA) and a catena of judgments. It was then held as under: "15. Coming to the facts of the present case it is clear from allegation in claim petition that the murder was not originally intended. Death was caused when the stolen wood was being taken away in the tractortrolley. Thus theft was felonious act intended and also to prevent tractortrolley from being seized, it was tried to be taken away. In such an event on the facts so pleaded even if it is a case of murder having the intention or knowledge, it was definitely an accidental murder arising out of use of motor vehicle. Thus, claim petition was clearly maintainable before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has erred in law in holding that it was having no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and the remedy lies under Common Law of Torts in a civil suit."
21. The facts of the aforecited case (Kaushalya Bai) are squarely applicable to the facts in the instant case. Hence, importing the ratios of Kaushalya Bai's case and that of Rita Devi to the facts of instant case, it is evident that Raman Kumar/respondent No.1, in order to use the Zakhira flyover, violated the traffic restrictions imposed during the said time and caused murder of Ct.Mana Ram. It 9 can, thus, be safely held that violating the traffic prohibition was the object of respondent No.1/Raman Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle and the murder that was caused in the said process was only incidental to the said act of violation. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that death of Ct.Mana Ram was caused accidentally in the process of committing violation of traffic restriction.
22. So far as the "intention" is concerned, in MANJULA & ORS. VS. SRINIWAS & ORS. reported as IV (2014) ACC 598 (KARNATAKA) which was cited by learned counsel for petitioners, the deceased was the driver of an omnibus bearing registration No.A. At the relevant time and place, the deceased had stopped the bus to pick up the passengers who were waiting near BMTC bus stop. At that time, driver of BMTC bus overtook bus of deceased and stopped by the side of omnibus and picked up a quarrel with deceased for unauthorisedly picking up passengers. The driver of BMTC bus dragged the deceased from omnibus bearing registration No.A and felled him on the road. Thereafter, the driver of BMTC bus abruptly started the bus and ran over BMTC bus on deceased and caused his death. Resultantly, FIR was registered against driver of BMTC bus and another employee for an offence punishable u/s 304 r/w Sec.34 IPC. The legal heirs of deceased driver also filed a claim u/ss 165 and 166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal dismissed their claim which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
23. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied upon a judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh titled as KACHARMAL KRISHANLAL MAHAJAN VS. CHAINRAM KRISHANLAL MAHAJAN, reported as 1992 ACJ 986 (MP), wherein it was held that "criminal intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to injured party does not affect tortious content of the act of mischief. In spite of the element of criminal intent involved in the offence of mischief, the act of mischief is necessarily rash and reckless act of tort." It was then held as follows: "12. Under Section 165 of the Act, Tribunals are constituted to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles.
The intention of user of motor vehicle is not relevant to decide a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act.
It is needless to state that Motor Vehicles Act is a species of law of torts enacted to provide compensation to injured/victims of tortious liability, 10 arising out of use of motor vehicle. The tort is a civil wrong independent of contract. The facts producing it may or may not also constitute an offence punishable by public authority. The same set of circumstances will, in fact, from one point of view, constitute a tort, while, from another point of view, amount to a crime.
13. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that in the absence of proof of rash and negligent act, Insurance Company cannot be called upon to satisfy liability though such liability had arisen by user of motor vehicle on public road.
14. In my considered opinion, this submission is not tenable. An act may be a tort or a crime. An act may give rise to civil or criminal liability. If tort is made punishable under Penal Code, it does not absolve tortfeasors of their liability under common law. In order to claim damages under Section 166 of the Act, it is not necessary to prove that there was no criminal intent behind user of motor vehicle."
24. Applying the ratio of the aforecited case to the case in hand, not only the intention of respondent No.1 was unimportant for petitioners to claim compensation u/s 166 of M.V. Act but also, considering the circumstances, element of rashness and negligence by respondent No.1 stood proved by the petitioners.
25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that not only the claim of compensation u/s 166 of M.V. Act is maintainable, but also, the petitioners were successful in establishing that death of deceased Ct.Mana Ram was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1/Raman Kumar. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 3 are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
26. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
27. Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled for compensation.
28. In SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121 , which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment 11 are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
29. It was claimed by the petitioners that deceased was aged 23 years at the time of accident. In support of their claim, PW3/Sanju Chaudhary, wife of the deceased, 12 placed on record Aadhar Card of the deceased (Ex.PW1/3), as per which, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.07.1988. Since the accident took place on 14.06.2014, hence, the deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of accident. Selection of multiplier
30. As the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 18 (eighteen). Income of the deceased
31. Admittedly, deceased Ct. Mana Ram was a Constable in Delhi Police. It was testified by PW1/Sanju Chaudhary in her evidence, that her deceased husband was drawing a salary of Rs.25,152/ per month. To substantiate her claim, she examined PW2/ASI Ranbir Singh, who proved salary slip of Ct. Mana Ram for the months of May and June 2014 as Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3 respectively. He also placed on record Salary Statement of deceased Ct.Mana Ram from August 2013 to June 2014 as Ex.PW2/4 (colly). From the bare of salary slips of deceased, it is evident that deceased Ct.Mana Ram was drawing a gross salary of Rs.25,152/ per month without any deduction towards income tax. Accordingly, income of the deceased is considered as Rs.25,152/ per month as on the date of accident.
Number of Dependents
32. It was claimed by the petitioners that deceased left behind six legal heirs including wife, son, parents and sister of the deceased who were solely dependent upon the deceased. However, as per documents placed on record by the petitioners, petitioner No.3/Dhapu Devi and petitioner No.4/Gena Ram i.e. parents of the deceased were aged 41 years and 44 years respectively at the time of accident. Hence, they cannot be held dependent upon the deceased. Further, sisters of the deceased were neither legal heirs nor dependents of the deceased.
Accordingly, for the purpose of ascertaining dependency upon the deceased, wife and minor son of the deceased are considered as dependents of the deceased.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
33. Applying the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), deduction in the 13 income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd (onethird) of his income.
Addition in the income towards future prospects
34. In view of the ratio of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), an addition of 50% of Rs.25,152/ (Rs.12,576/ p.m.) is made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased after making an addition of future prospects would be Rs.37,728/ per month. Loss of financial dependency
35. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, the total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be:
Rs.25,152 + Rs.12,576 (50% of Rs.25,152) = Rs.37,728/ Rs.37,728 x 1/3rd (onethird) = Rs.12,576/ Rs.37,728 - Rs.12,576 = Rs.25,152/ Rs.25,152 x 12 = Rs.3,01,824/ Rs.3,01,824 x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.54,32,832/ (rounded off to Rs.54,33,000/) (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
36. In the judgment PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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.
37. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards funeral expenses; Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) as compensation towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation towards loss of estate.
38. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 54,33,000
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000
3 Loss of Estate 15,000
4 Loss of Consortium 40,000
TOTAL 55,03,000
14
Rs.55,03,000/ (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs and Three Thousand). LIABILITY
39. Since it is proved that respondent No.1/Raman Kumar @ Raman Kant was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, hence, he is liable to pay compensation as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.2/Devender Chahal is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being the owner of the offending vehicle.
40. Admittedly, respondent No.3/National Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending vehicle which was insured vide Policy bearing No.35101031136133168347 valid from 06.07.2013 to 05.07.2014 including the date of accident i.e. 14.06.2014. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s). However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under statutory liability to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
RELIEF
41. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.55,03,000/ (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs and Three Thousand) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 14.08.2014 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
42. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the petitioners immediately along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs.
Apportionment
43. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name Relationship with Share in the award
deceased amount
1 Smt.Sanju Chaudhary Wife 40%
2 Mayank Chaudhary Minor Son 30%
15
3 Smt.Dhapu Devi Mother 15%
4 Gena Ram Father 15%
Mode of payment and disbursement
44. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/ Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
45. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT SBI Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
46. In accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mr.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager/SBI, has been appointed as Nodal Officer in accordance with the abovesaid order having phone No.02222741336/9414048606 and email id:
[email protected]. In case of any assistance or noncompliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by email 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. The 16 Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the email.
47. Out of total award amount of Rs.55,03,000/, a sum of Rs.5,03,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs and Three Thousand), be released to the petitioners in proportion to their shares mentioned above, immediately in their savings bank accounts in nationalised bank(s).
48. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) as per share of money as mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003 as per details mentioned herein:
(i) An amount of Rs.20,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) be kept in 125 (one hundredtwenty five) fixed deposits of Rs.16,000/ (Rupees Sixteen Thousands) each, in the name of petitioner No.1/Sanju Chaudhary (wife), for the period of one month to 125 months respectively, with cumulative interest.
(ii) An amount of Rs.15,00,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) be kept in one FDR in the name of minor petitioner No.2/Mayank (son) with cumulative interest till his attaining the age of majority.
(iii) An amount of Rs.7,50,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) be kept in 75 (seventy five) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.3/Smt.Dhapu Devi (mother), for the period of one month to 75 months respectively, with cumulative interest.
(iv) An amount of Rs.7,50,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) be kept in 75 (seventy five) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.4/Gena Ram (father), for the period of one month to 75 months respectively, with cumulative interest.
However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
49. The petitioners have filed their PAN Cards during the recording of their statements under Clause 27 of MCTAP. They are directed to submit Form 15G 17 (Form 15H in case of Senior Citizen) to the insurance company in case they are eligible for exemption of deduction of TDS.
50. The following conditions are imposed 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 the 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 premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) 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 freeze the debit card(s) of 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 18 duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
51. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
52. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
53. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 30.10.2019.
54. Form IVA in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
Announced in the open Court 2019.09.16
15:32:53 +0530
on 16th September, 2019
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
19
FORM IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 14.06.2014
2. Name of the deceased Mana Ram
3. Age of the deceased 25 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Government Service
5. Income of the deceased Rs.25,152/ per month
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
SN Name Age/DOB Relation
1 Smt.Sanju Chaudhary 01.01.1991 Wife
2 Mayank Chaudhary 08.05.2011 Son
3 Smt.Dhapu Devi 1973 Mother
4 Gena Ram 26.01.1962 Father
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal (Rs.)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 25,152
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 12,576
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) 12,576
10. Monthly loss of dependency 25,152
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) 3,01,824
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) 54,32,832 (rounded off to
Rs.54,33,000/)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 15,000
20
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.55,03,000/
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.25,20,337/
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.80,23,337/
23. Award amount released Rs.5,03,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.50,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the FDRs
claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 30.10.2019
Digitally signed by
HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2019.09.16
15:33:01 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi