Delhi District Court
Chanda Devi vs Harjeet Singh on 24 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF JAGDISH KUMAR: PO:MACT2 (SOUTHWEST):
DWARKA: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 1644/2016
FIR No. 239/2016
PS DABRI
1. Chanda Devi
W/o Brij Kishore
2. Brij Kishore
S/o Shiv Mangal
Both R/o RZ17A, Gali No.1, East Sagarpur,
Nangal Rai,South West Delhi ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Harjeet Singh
S/o Durlabh Singh
R/O F2174, Gali No.2
Village Batala Distt Gurdaspur
Punjab.
2.Jaspal Singh
S/o Kartar Singh
R/o H.No.524, Sita Nagar,
Bus Stand Ludhiana,
Punjab
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
E8, Rico Industrial Area, Sita Pura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan302022
....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.05.2016
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.11.2022
DATE OF AWARD : 24.11.2022
MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 1 of 14
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 02.03.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 23.05.2016 officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating do officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not known before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 23.05.2016 (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 11.05.2016 (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). (Clause 11) 11.05.2016
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later N/A on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Yes, there was a of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any delay but it is not action/direction warranted? known whether any action was taken against the IO or not.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not known insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated do Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Not known MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 2 of 14 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the liability? N/A If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part N/A of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N/A Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 24.11.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving Yes bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause
18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 26.02.2018 open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar 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(s). (Clause
18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the passbook N/A of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) Both R/o RZ17A, (Clause 27) Gali No.1, East Sagarpur,Nangal Rai,South West Delhi
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and Petitioner no. 1 the address of the bank with IFSC Code (Clause 27) SB A/c No. MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 3 of 14 520101006282152 IFSC Code:
UBIN0912565 at Union Bank of India, Mayapuri, New Delhi Petitioner no. 2 SB A/c No. 520101006281830 IFSC Code:
UBIN0912565 at Union Bank of India, Mayapuri, New Delhi
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is near Not known his/her place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award.
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, name and State Bank of India, branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the Branch Sector10, award amount is to be deposited/transferred Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Account No. 37665510911 MICR No. 110002483 FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 02.03.2016
2. Name of deceased: Sonu
3. Age of the deceased: 20 years (as stated in the claim petition)
4. Occupation of the deceased: Pursuing Graduation.
5. Income of the deceased: N/A MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 4 of 14
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Chanda Devi 45 yrs Mother
(ii) Brij Kishore 48 yrs Father
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 11,154/ as per minimum
wages of Matriculation in Delhi
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Rs.4461.60 /- (40%)
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased Rs. 7807.80/ as deceased was (C) bachelor at the time of accident.
10. Monthly loss of dependency 11,154/ + 4461.60/ - 7807.80 { (A+B) - C =D} = 7807.80
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 93,693.60 12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs. 16,86,484.80 ( In lumb sum of Rs.16,86,485/)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-
(I) 44,000/- to each petitioners
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.16,500/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.16,500/
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 18,07,485/
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% per annum
MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 5 of 14
21 Interest amount up to the date of As per calculation
compliance (M)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) As per calculation
23. Award amount released 10%
24. Award amount kept in FDRs 90% equal yearly FDR's
25. Mode of disbursement of the award NEFT
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29)
26. Next date for compliance of the award. 23.12.2022
(Clause 31)
AWARD
1. The facts leading to pass the award are that Police has filed Detailed Accident Report (DAR) with respect to accident occurred on 02.03.2016. As per the facts of the present case, in the intervening night of 02/03 March, 2016 the Son ( deceased) of the petitioners alongwith his friend Ankush was coming on a scooty bearing No. DL9SAN0953. When they reached Shiv Main Market,Vijay Enclave Palam Dabri,Delhi. Meanwhile one Truck bearing No. PB10DB0953 being driven by R1 came in a very rash and negligent manner and hit them from behind. Due to which both the occupant of scooty fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Both the injured succumbed to the injures on the spot. From the accident place the deceased was taken to hospital where doctor, on duty, declared him " brought dead" The present matter pertains to deceased Sonu.
2. The investigation was carried out and accordingly the present DAR was filed before this Tribunal. It is contending in the DAR that said accident took place, due to rash and negligent driving by Harjeet Singh (respondent MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 6 of 14 no.1/ Driver) who was driving Truck bearing No.PB10DB0953 , owned by Jaspal Singh ( respondent No.2/owner) and insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (respondent no.3). The DAR has been converted into petition. The parents of the deceased are made claimants in the petition.
3. The respondents contested the claim by filing their written statements. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their written statement stating therein that deceased driver of scooty was coming on the wrong side of the road and and driver of the scooty and its pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
4. The respondent no. 3 (insurance company) has not filed W.S.
5. After completion of the proceedings, following consolidated issues were framed on 20.11.2017 in MACT No.1643/16 and in the present case.
(i) Whether Sonu and Ankush sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated on 02.03.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck ) no.PB10DB0953 being driven by respondent No.1Harjeet Singh, owned by respondent No.2 Jaspal Singh and insured by Respondent No.3 Shri Ram General Insured Company ? OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned case are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
6. In order to prove their claim, petitioners have examined petitioner no.1 Smt.Chanda Devi as PW1 and Ct Ajit Singh as PW2 . No evidence was led by any of the respondents.
MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 7 of 147. I have heard ld. counsels appearing on behalf of petitioners and respondent no.3. None has appeared for argument on behalf of R.1 and R.2.My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1: Whether Sonu and Ankush sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated on 02.03.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck ) no.PB10DB0953 being driven by respondent No.1Harjeet Singh, owned by respondent No.2 Jaspal Singh and insured by Respondent No.3 Shri Ram General Insured Company ? OPP
8. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. To prove this fact petitioners examined petitioner no.1 Chanda Devi who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A).
9. PW2 Ct Ajit Singh has deposed that in the intervening night of 02/03 March 2016, he alongwith Ct Kishan Kumar were on patrolling duty,when this incident had happened. The offending vehicle hit the scooty. He has deposed that driver of scooty and pillion rider fell down. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away with his vehicle. They caught the driver of the offending vehicle and took him to police Station. He has lodged the FIR regarding the incident. He has deposed that driver and its pillion rider received crushed injuries. This witness has not been crossexamined hence testimony of the said PW with respect to accident and rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 could not be impeached. Even otherwise the proof of negligence while disposing off a claim under MACT, is not that strict as it is under Section 279/338/304A of IPC. The respondent no.1 and 2 although have denied the factum of negligence on the part MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 8 of 14 of R.1 but have not led any evidence to prove the same. The allegations levelled in the written statement howsoever strong that may be, cannot take place of proof particularly when despite having raised this issue respondent no.1 and 2 have not led any positive evidence on this aspect. Therefore, the evidence which has come on the file only can be considered and it becomes more relevant when there is no specific evidence led by other side in rebuttal. It is a matter of record that there is no evidence at all to show that victim was at fault, in any way. The fact that Sonu died in that accident is also supported by his postmortem report on the dead body of victim. After investigation, police indicted respondent no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 279/338/304A of IPC. The FIR has been registered against respondent no.1. Considering all the evidence as discussed above, it stands proved that accident in question was caused due to rash or negligent driving of truck bearing No. PB10DB0953 being driven by respondent no.1 thereby causing death of Sonu.
10. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victim Sonu died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing No. PB10DB0953 by respondent no.1.
ISSUE No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
11. Petitioner no.1 and 2 are the mother and father of victim as such LRs of victim.
12. Now coming to the extent of compensation. According to the petitioners, at the time of accident, the deceased Sonu was pursuing his Graduation with Delhi MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 9 of 14 University and also giving tuition and as such earning Rs.15,000/.
13. Ld Counsel for the insurance company has argued that deceased has not completed his graduation and was only pursuing the same. Hence his income for calculation of compensation may be taken as per Minimum Wages of Matriculation prevailing in Delhi. Ld Counsel for the petitioners has also fairly admitted that the income of the deceased can be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act prevailing in Delhi. Since the petitioners have failed to prove the income of the deceased Sonu. So the compensation should be calculated on the basis of minimum wages.
15. In view of the above, earnings of deceased is being taken to be equal to minimum wages of matriculation at the time of accident (02.03.2016) which was Rs. 11,154/ per month.
16. As per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others of Hon'ble Supreme Court the net income of the deceased is to be counted after deduction of tax and future benefit have to be given @ 40%.
17. Since, no income record has been proved on record and keeping in view the fact that the age of the deceased was 19 years old, therefore the income for the purpose of loss of dependency has to be taken as Rs.7807.80 / (11,154/ + 4461.60/ 7807.80) per month.
18. To calculate loss of dependency, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of age of deceased. A multiplier of 18 is thus taken in calculating loss of dependency. The deceased was Bachelor at the time of accident so deceased MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 10 of 14 spending 50% of his income on his personal expenses. Counting in this way, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,86,484.80/ (7807.80/ x 12 x 18). This amount of Rs. 16,86,484.80/ ( In lumb sum Rs.16,86,485/) is allowed to petitioner no.1 and 2 as loss of dependency.
19. Apart from amount mentioned above, petitioner no. 1 is also granted a sum of Rs.16,500/ for funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/ for loss of estate and Rs. 44,000/ each to the petitioners for loss of consortium making a total sum of Rs. 18,07,485/ Detail of the whole award amount is: i. Loss of dependency Rs. 16,86,485/ ii. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/ iii. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/ v. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/- each to the petitioner Total Rs. 18,07,485/
20. Now coming to the extent of liability. It has already been held herein above that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. He is primarily liable to make payment. However, the petitioners have made the respondent no. 3 (insurance company) as one of the party seeking direction to respondent no. 3 that it be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 on the date of accident. However, counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased. Ld. Counsel appearing for insurance MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 11 of 14 company has also referred to Nishan Singh & Ors. Vs Oriental insurance company Ltd. Whereby alleging the petitioner to be negligent, however, no evidence was led by any of the respondents to show the contributory negligence of the deceased. Moreover, the evidence of the petitioners fully supports their case, therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by holding that petitioners are entitled for compensation from respondent no.3.
ISSUE NO.2 (RELIEF)
21. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no.3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,07,485/ alongwith interest @ 7.5% to the petitioners as compensation in this case, within 30 days from today, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 23.05.2016 till the date of compliance i.e., 23.12.2022. Amount of interim compensation (if any) be deducted from this amount.
22. In view of the facts of the case, the circumstances of the petitioner(s) the compensation to the Petitioner(s) be distributed as follows: S Name of Age Relation with Amount of Amount to be Amount kept Period of FDR Mode:-
N Petitioner/Claimant (yrs) Injured/ Award released in FDR Cash/ Deceased Cheque/ DD
1. Chanda Devi 45 yrs Mother Rs. 9,03,742.50/- Rs. 90,374.25/- 8,13,368.25/- 80 monthly RTGS FDRs of Rs.
10,000/- each for a period of one month to eighty months and eight one monthly FDR of Rs.13,368.25 with cumulative MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 12 of 14 interest
2. Brij Kishore 48 yrs Father Rs. 9,03,742.50/- Rs. 90,374.25/- 8,13,368.25/- 80 monthly FDRs of Rs.
10,000/- each for
a period of one
month to eighty
months and eight
one monthly
FDR of
Rs.13,368.25
with cumulative
interest
TOTAL Rs. 18,07,485/- Rs.18,0748.50 16,26,736.50
23. The salient features as prescribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta FAO No. 842/2009 and MAC. App. No. 422/2009 decided on 07.11.2014 are to be applied:
(i) The fixed deposit be renewed automatically till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 13 of 14(vii) No cheque book/ATM/debit card/credit card shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal or preencashment of FD amount shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
24. Respondent no.3 is directed to deposit entire amount of compensation with this tribunal, within 30 days from today, with advance notice to petitioners. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (JAGDISH KUMAR )
COURT ON 24.11.2022 POMACT02,SOUTHWEST,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI
MACT no. 1644/2016 Chanda Devi Vs Harjeet Singh Page 14 of 14