Delhi District Court
Saroj Gupta & Anr. vs . Hariom Chaudhary & Ors. on 21 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT/SAKET COURTS COMPLEX/NEW DELHI
MACT No. 3649/16
FIR No. 490/15
Police Station H. N. Din
Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.
Fatal Case
1. Smt. Saroj Gupta W/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar (Mother of deceased, aged
67 yrs.)
2. Ms. Shradha Gupta D/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar (Unmarried sister of
deceased, aged 22 yrs.)
Both R/o - D12, 2nd Floor, Rani Garden,
Shashtri Nagar Extension, Delhi110031
.............Petitioners/claimants
VERSES
1. Shri Hariom Chaudhary S/o Sh. Baney Singh Chaudhary (Driver)
R/o Village Jatwara, TehsilLaxmangarh,
PS Khedligarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan
2. Shri Tarun Seth S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Seth (Owner)
R/o D6, 6060/6, 2nd Floor, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
15th Floor, TowerA, Peninsula Busines Park,
Ganpatrao kadam, Marg, Off. Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai.
......................Respondents
Date of Institution (DAR) : 04.01.2016
Date of Institution (claim petition) : 27.07.2016
Date of reserving judgment/order : 15.12.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2017
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 1/ 16
JUDGMENT:
1. Present claim proceedings were initiated on the basis of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the police on 04.01.2016 in respect of fatal injuries suffered by deceased Sakshi Gupta (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in a road accident. Petitioners also filed separate claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act which was directed to be clubbed with the DAR by the learned predecessor of this Tribual vide order dated 27.07.2016.
2. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is the mother and petitioner No. 2 is the sister of deceased.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.07.2015 at about 08.30 AM, deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on scooty bearing No. DL7SBW5742 which was driven by one Atinder Pal Singh and was going to her residence from Lodhi Road, New Delhi. When the abovesaid scooty reached near Oberoi Hotel Flyover, H. N. Din, then all of sudden offending car bearing No. DL3CBV 7828, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 in very rash and negligent manner, suddenly took left turn and hit abovesaid scooty due to which deceased fell down on the road and she suffered fatal injuries.
4. FIR No. 490/15 under Section 279/338 IPC was got registered at Police Station H. N. Din. Police conducted investigation. After due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and charge sheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338304A IPC.
5. Insurance Company/R3 filed its reply/legal offer, on the basis of which claim of petitioners was decided by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 2/ 16 vide Judgment dated 23.09.2016 wherein a sum of Rs.6,87,760/ was awarded in favor of petitioners. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, petitioners preferred appeal titled 'Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors. (TATA AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd.)' [MAC Appeal No. 148/17 decided on 22.08.2017] wherein Hon'ble High Court set aside the impugned judgment and matter was remitted to this Tribunal to hold proper inquiry on the claim petition of appellants/ petitioners.
6. After the case was remitted from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal on 19.09.2017:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road accident which took place on 30.07.2015 involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL 3CBV 7828 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 ? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and from whom ?
3. Relief.
7. During evidence, petitioner No. 1/Smt. Saroj Gupta, mother of deceased examined herself as PW1. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1, copy of Aadhar Card of her daughter Shardha Gupta as Ex.PW1/2, Copy of Aadhar card of her deceased daughter as Ex.PW1/3, copy of office Icard of deceased as Ex. PW1/4, copy of appointment letter of deceased as Ex.PW1/5, copies of salary slips of deceased as Ex.PW1/6 (collectively), bank account statement of deceased as Ex.PW1/7 (collectively), copies of educational documents of deceased as Ex.PW1/8 (collectively), MLC of deceased as Ex.PW1/9, MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 3/ 16 discharge summaries and OPD cards as Ex.PW1/10 (collectively), medical bills as Ex.PW1/11 (collectively), postmortem report as Ex.PW1/12 and DAR as Ex. PW1/13.
8. Petitioners have also got examined eyewitness of the accident i.e. Shri Atinder Pal Singh as PW2 who deposed regarding the manner of accident.
9. No other witness was examined by the petitioners.
10. No witness was examined by any of the respondents.
11. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows :
Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
12. PW2 Shri Atinder Pal Singh, who is an eyewitness of the accident, has deposed that on 30.07.2015 at about 08.30 AM, he was going from Sai Baba Mandir, Lodhi Road towards his residence on scooty bearing registration No. DL7SBW5742. He has deposed that his friend Sakshi Gupta was sitting on his abovesaid scooty as a pillion rider and when they reached near Oberoi Hotel Flyover, Hazarat Nizamuddin, all of a sudden, one Honda City Car bearing Delhi number with last four digits of 7828, came from behind and suddenly overtook a sharp left turn and in that process hit them. As a result, they fell down. He has deposed that he sustained injury whereas his friend became unconscious. Offending vehicle stopped and they rushed his friend in the same car to Moolchand Hospital. Police came in Moolchand Hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and FIR was lodged. He has categorically deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 4/ 16 of offending vehicle namely Shri Hari Om Chaudhary. Nothing came in his crossexamination which could create doubt on his testimony regarding the manner of accident. Furthermore, after due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and charge sheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338/304A IPC.
13. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further reliance can be placed on the case of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 5/ 1614. In view of the above discussion, petitioners have succeeded in proving that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
15. Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or is likely to be suffered by each of dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death : (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.' (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017) has dealt with the concept of 'just compensation'. Paragraph No. 57 of abovesaid Judgment is reproduced as under:
"57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, resonableness and equability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case.................. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equability....... The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplies to be applied....... It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 6/ 16 just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
16. In the light of aforesaid guidelines and parameters, this Tribunal has to assess the compensation to be awarded to the claimants/petitioners.
17. Age of deceased: As per Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/3, deceased was aged 25 years on the date of accident. Postmortem report also shows the age of deceased as 25 years. Hence, deceased was aged 25 years at the time of her death. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has argued that age of legal heirs of deceased should be considered for the purpose of assessment of multiplier. In this regard, she has relied upon case titled 'Hem Raj Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd' SLP (Civil) No. 22134/16 dated: 22.11.2017 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding the tagged SLP (Civil) No. 34237/16, has observed that: Ld. counsel for the respondents states that the issue whether the age of deceased or the age of legal heirs is to be taken into account for arriving at proper multiplier is pending consideration in SLP (C) No...../2017 (CC No. 7577 of 2017). However, perusal of judgment of Hem Raj (supra) shows that the same does not clarify as to what is the age of the deceased in that case or whether deceased was married or not. Further, in the latest judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying multiplier. Even, if the issue regarding the age of deceased or his legal heirs for arriving at proper multiplier is pending consideration, the latest judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) shall prevail until the final disposal of this issue by Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, appropriate multiplier, as per 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.' [(2009) 6 SCC 121], for the age group of 21 25 is 18.
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 7/ 1618. Income of deceased: PW1 Saroj Gupta, in her affidavit of evidence, has stated that her deceased daughter was doing the work of a Assistant Manager at Kotak Mahindra Bank and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month approximately. PW1 Saroj Gupta has proved the appointment letter, salary slips of deceased during her evidence. Learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that salary component which needs to be considered for the purpose of salary of the deceased are basic salary and HRA only. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled 'Vishakha & Ors Vs. Shree Pal & Anr.' [I (2012) ACC 452] wherein it was held that all the perks paid to an employee by employer should be included for computation of the deceased's income for arriving at the decision. It was further held in 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors' [AIR 2008 SC 845] that "if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required to be determined.....". In 'Raj Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.' [IX (2009) SLT 211] while relying on Indira Srivastava (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that apart from dearness allowance other allowances payable for the benefit of the family, have to be considered for the computation of the annual income. In 'Pashupabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd.' [(1977) 2 SCC 745], it was held that dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and other allowances are to be treated as part of the deceased's income. It was further held that there is distinction between the conveyance allowance and a traveling allowance. Where ever a traveling allowance is paid to an employee to perform his duties MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 8/ 16 this may not be considered as the deceased's income, but where conveyance allowance is paid apart from salary, the same may or may not be spent while traveling to the place of employment. Therefore, where conveyance allowance is paid as part of the salary, the same has to be taken into consideration for computation of the loss of dependency. Deduction towards the personal living expenses is otherwise made to calculate the dependency.
19. A perusal of the pay slip of the deceased shows the components of salary as basic pay, HRA, Transport allowance, Professional allowance, Medical reimbursement, bonus and LTA. In view of Pashupabai Purshottam Udeshi (supra), all these allowances are to be treated as part of the deceased's income for the purpose of computation of compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased. Thus, income of deceased is taken as 16,988/ per month or Rs.2,03,856/ per annum.
20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that income of the victim be taken after subtracting tax component. However, income tax slab for the assessment year 201617 shows that for the said year, tax component was nil for the income upto Rs.2,50,000/ per annum of persons below the age of 60 years. Hence, there is no need for any subtraction from the annual income of deceased of Rs.2,03,856/ per annum.
21. Dependents & deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased was unmarried and left behind his mother and unmarried sister. Thus as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), half of income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Hence, income of deceased is taken as Rs.1,01,928/ per annum (Rs.2,03,856/ minus half of Rs.2,03,856/).
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 9/ 1622. Future prospects: In 'Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.' [(2012) 6 SCC 421], Hon'ble Apex Court has not accepted as a principle that a selfemployed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it is held that 'to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite'. Hon'ble Apex Court has also discussed as to what should be the addition in the income of deceased towards the future prospects and concluded that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. Since deceased was aged 25 years on the date of accident, there should be an increase of 40% in the income of deceased as per mandate of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, income of deceased after increasing the same by 40% comes out to be (Rs.1,01,928/ + 40% of Rs.1,01,928/) Rs.1,42,699.2 per annum which is rounded off to Rs.1,42,700/ per month or per annum.
23. Loss of Dependency: In view of the above, the calculation of loss of dependency is as follows: Rs.1,42,700/ X 18 = Rs.25,68,600/. In addition, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. Now, compensation comes out to Rs.25,98,600/. Perusal of documents filed on record shows that petitioners have filed medical bills (Ex. PW1/11 collectively) totaling to MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 10/ 16 Rs.20,702/ incurred on the treatment of deceased before she died due to injuries suffered in the accident. Petitioners are entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by them on the treatment of deceased before she died. Hence, total compensation comes out to Rs.26,19,302/ (Rs. Twenty Six Lac Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred & Two Only).
Relief:
24. I hereby award an amount of Rs.26,19,302/ (Rs. Twenty Six Lac Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred & Two Only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization of the amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The respondent No. 3, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to indemnify the owner/respondent No. 2 and to pay compensation to petitioners.
25. Liability: Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, Saket, New Delhi within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
26. Share and release of awarded amount:
i) Petitioner No. 1: A sum of Rs.20,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 being mother of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to her on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.19,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 11/ 16
1. Rs.1 lac for period of 1 year 10. Rs.1 lac for period of 10 years
2. Rs.1 lac for period of 2 years 11. Rs.1 lac for period of 11 years
3. Rs.1 lac for period of 3 years 12. Rs.1 lac for period of 12 years
4. Rs.1 lac for period of 4 years 13. Rs.1 lac for period of 13 years
5. Rs.1 lac for period of 5 year 14. Rs.1 lac for period of 14 years
6. Rs.1 lac for period of 6 years 15. Rs.1 lac for period of 15 years
7. Rs.1 lac for period of 7 years 16. Rs.1 lac for period of 16 years
8. Rs.1 lac for period of 8 years 17. Rs.1 lac for period of 17 years
9. Rs.1 lac for period of 9 years 18. Rs.1 lac for period of 18 years
19. Rs.1 lac for period of 19 years
ii) Petitioner No. 2: A sum of Rs.6,19,302/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 2 being unmarried sister of deceased.
Out of this amount, Rs.1,19,302/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to her on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year 6. Rs.50,000/ for period of 6 years
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years 7. Rs.50,000/ for period of 7 years
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years 8. Rs.50,000/ for period of 8 years
4. Rs.50,000/ for period of 4 years 9. Rs.50,000/ for period of 9 years
5. Rs.50,000/ for period of 5 year 10. Rs.50,000/ for period of 10 years Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
27. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
28. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App.135/2008" as well as in MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 12/ 16 another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
29. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit/ savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
30. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners/claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants/ petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants/petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants/petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimants/ petitioners alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants/ MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 13/ 16 petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimants/petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants/petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, state Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
Directions for the respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch within a period of 30 days from today.
31. Respondent No. 3 shall intimate to the claimants/petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same. Copy of this award/judgment be given to all concerned.
32. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance and copy be also sent to DLSA, SE and Ld. MM concerned.
33. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 30.07.2015 MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 14/ 16 2 Date of intimation of the accident by 31.07.2015 the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident by Not available.
the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Section Not known.
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 04.01.2016.
Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the 04.01.2016 Insurance Company.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 04.01.2016.
claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the DAR? Not applicable. 10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or There was delay in filing of deficiency on the part of the DAR but IO filed applications Investigating Officer? If so, whether for extension of time in filing any action/ direction warranted? of DAR mentioning the reason for extension.
12 Date of appointment of the Not available.
Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
13 Name, address and contact number of Not available.
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes.
Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company admitted admitted the liability? If so, whether its liability.
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 15/ 16the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or No. deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to Legal offer was filed on the the offer of the Insurance Company. basis of which order dt.
23.09.2016 was passed, but
petitioners challenged the same
and the case was remanded
back by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi.
18 Date of the award. 21.12.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed with No.
the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined at Yes.
the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
21 Whether the photographs, specimen Photo ICards and other
signatures, proof of residence and requisite information was
particulars of bank account of the already on record.
injured/legal heirs of the deceased
taken at the time of passing of the
award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the award Part award amount of
amount to the claimant(s). petitioners are released and rest
is kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 23.01.2018.
award.
Announced in open Court
Dated:21.12.2017 (Raj Kumar Chauhan)
POMACT02 (SE)Saket, New Delhi
21.12.2017
MACT No. 3649/16 Saroj Gupta & Anr. Vs. Hariom Chaudhary & Ors.. Page No. 16/ 16