Delhi District Court
Shammi vs Girish Singh And Ors on 7 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHAMMI & ORS. VS. GIRISH & ORS.
MACP No.87/17
1. Mrs. Shammi (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Jagdish
2. Sh. Sumit Ujjainwal (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish
3. Atul (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish
4. Shital (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Jagdish
All R/o T-59/60, East Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt., South West Delhi. ......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Girish (Driver)
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh,
R/o 60, Infantry Brigade,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
2. DIG (ADM) DIE General (Owner)
office at Indian Army Water Tanker,
60, Infantry Brigade, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
3. Union of India (Owner)
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Ms. Preeti (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Jagdish
R/o T-59/60, East Mehram Nagar,
Delhi Cantt. South West Delhi. .........Respondents
MACP No. 87/17
Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 1 of 23
Date of filing of DAR : 20.12.2016
Date of filing of claim petition : 12.04.2017
Date of framing of issues : 27.04.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 03.04.2025
Date of decision : 07.04.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Jagdish in a motor accident that took place on 23.07.2016, at about 10:15 am, at Football Ground, 60 Infantry Brigade, New Delhi, regarding which FIR No.257/16, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a water tanker bearing BA No. 06PO1782N, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) Sh. Girish, owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) DIG (ADM) DIE General.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 23.07.2016 at 10:10 AM, the deceased was standing on Football Ground 60, Infantry Brigade, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi. When the respondent no. 1 was reversing the Army Water Tanker bearing No. 06P017827N in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased standing behind the said offending vehicle came under the rear tyre of the Water Tanker and sustained dangerous head injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to Safdarjung Hospital where his MLC was prepared and he was declared brought dead by the doctors.
3. Respondents filed their joint written statement to the MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 2 of 23 claim petition wherein it is submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is a 2.5 ton capacity water bowser, which is operated by a turbo charged engine and it is mandatory to start the engine and run it on idle for two minutes before the vehicle can be operated. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was fitted with a reversing beeper which beeps every time the vehicle was being reversed. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 had checked the rear of the vehicle and on being satisfied that no person was there behind the vehicle, went to the driver's seat and started the vehicle. After reversing the vehicle at a very slow pace, for about two feet, respondent no. 1 felt obstruction near the rear wheel of the said vehicle. He got out of the said vehicle and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with his neck and left half of the fact crushed. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 had exercised every possible precaution in a very prudent manner before he had proceeded to reverse the said vehicle.
4. On 27.04.2017, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether Sh. Jagdish sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 23.07.2016 at about 10:15 AM at Football Ground, 60 Infantry Brigade, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. BA No. 06P 017827N being driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 3 of 23
5. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Shammi, wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon certain documents. MLC of deceased is Ex. PW1/1. Postmortem report of deceased is Ex. PW1/2. Death certificate of deceased is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card of deceased is Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). Copy of salary slip of deceased is Mark A. Copy of employment ID card of deceased is Ex. PW1/5 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar cards of petitioners no. 1 to 3 are Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/8 respectively. Copy of Aadhaar card of her daughter Shital is Ex. PW1/9. DAR filed by the IO is Ex. PW1/10 (colly).
6. Petitioners also examined one Sh. Vijayant Thapa, S/o Sh. Dhan Bahadur Thapa, R/o 18, Church Road, Near St. Martin Church, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010, who is an eye witness of the accident, as PW2.
7. Petitioners also examined one HAV Jai Pal from the employer of deceased as PW3 who has placed on record attested copy of appointment letter of deceased as Ex. PW3/1, attendance sheet of deceased for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW3/2, last pay certificate of deceased for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW3/3 and calculation sheets along with application for family pension and death gratuity as Ex. PW3/4 (colly).
8. The Tribunal heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. Dalip Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Ms. Smrati Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for respondents and has carefully perused the entire case record.
9. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 4 of 23 10. ISSUE NO. 11. Whether Sh. Jagdish sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 23.07.2016 at about 10:15 AM at Football Ground, 60 Infantry Brigade, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. BA No. 06P 017827N being driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2 ? OPP.
11. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. 06P 017827N.
12. In order to prove the same, the petitioners examined Sh. Vijayant Thapa, who is an eye witness of the accident, as PW2 who deposed regarding circumstances of accident as follows :-
" I am a summoned witness. I am an eye witness of the accident. The accident took place on 23.07.2016 at around 10- 10:30 am, at Ground 60, Infantry Brigade, near Dwarka Palam Flyover, Sports Ground, Delhi Cantt., Delhi. The driver of the offending vehicle namely Sh. Girish Singh was on duty on vehicle bearing registration No. 06P-1782N, 2.5 ton water bawzer (water tank) on the day of accident. At the time of reversing the vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle could not see the person behind the vehicle and the deceased Sh. Jagdish was hit by the above said vehicle. The deceased also sustained injuries due to the accident and the blood was oozing out from his body. I was present 100 metres away in my office from the spot of accident. On hearing the sound of public gathered at the spot, I reached at the spot and found that the deceased was MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 5 of 23 lying dead under the above vehicle. Thereafter, I called the police at 100 number and the police reached at the spot of accident after around 10 to 15 minutes of the accident. The deceased was crushed under the wheels of the above said vehicle due to which he died on the spot of accident. The accident took place due to negligence of driver of the above offending vehicle."
13. During his cross examination, he has deposed that he was sitting inside the office which was 100 meters away from the spot of accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased. During his cross examination, the respondents did not dispute his assertions regarding mode and manner of accident.
14. Respondents did not lead any evidence to substantiate their contention that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased himself. During the course of final arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for respondents, it was submitted that the accident could not have been caused by negligence of offending vehicle as it makes such loud noise while running that any person would have moved away. It was further argued that it implies that the deceased was already dead when the offending vehicle ran over the deceased. No such suggestions have been put to PW2/eye witness by Ld. Counsel for respondents during his cross examination. No evidence has been led by respondents in this regard.
15. DAR/chargesheet filed in the present case supports the case of the petitioners.
16. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 6 of 23 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has 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.
18. 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 on 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 petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
19. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do.
MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 7 of 23Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
20. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. 06P 017827N and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
21. ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
22. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated 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
23. The petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased husband was working with Indian Army HQ 60 INF MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 8 of 23 BDF, New Delhi and was getting salary of Rs. 35,714/- per month. PW1 has tendered on record copy of salary slip of her deceased husband as Mark A as well as copy of employment ID card of her deceased husband as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR).
24. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined HAV Jai Pal as PW3 who has placed on record attested copy of appointment letter of deceased as Ex. PW3/1, attendance sheet of deceased for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW3/2, last pay certificate of deceased for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW3/3 and calculation sheets along with application for family pension and death gratuity as Ex. PW3/4 (colly).
25. It is explicit from the testimony of PW3 coupled with the aforesaid exhibited documents that the deceased was working on the post of Consy Safaiwala with Indian Army and was getting salary of Rs. 44,952/- per month. Further, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards GP Fund Subscription, Rs.125/- towards CGHS and Rs.30/- towards CGEIS was deducted from the above said monthly salary of deceased.
26. Reliance has been placed upon the recent Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nisha Yadav & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 479/2016, decided on 28.11.2024, wherein it was held as under :-
"14. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Jashuben and Ors (2008) 4 SCC 162, the Apex Court has discussed the aspect of inclusion of allowances and has observed that the amounts which were paid to the deceased as perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as the same would have constituted a part of his monthly income by way of contribution to the family. However, the allowances which MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 9 of 23 were for personal benefit were liable to be deducted.
15. This aspect was further explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 378. It was observed that while ascertaining the net monthly income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the Salary Certificate as deductions towards GPF, Life Insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc. should not be excluded from the income.
The deduction towards Income
Tax/Surcharge alone should be
considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.
16. Relying upon the above judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed in the case of Ram Charan & Ors. vs The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5146, that including all Incentives, Bonuses or Allowances would be available to the Legal heirs regardless of the demise of the deceased or not. Thus, exclusion of personal expenses like Travel and Washing Allowances while calculating the deceased's income, was validated as being solely for the personal benefit of the deceased, in order to have the actual economic salary loss by excluding job-specific transient benefits.
17. Thus, the nature of the allowance/perk becomes a decisive factor for determining whether such allowance/perk would constitute a part of the actual income of the deceased.
18. In the present case, as per the salary slip of deceased/Shri Satypal Singh, certain allowances were being paid on account of Transport, Washing, Metro Pass, Ration Money and Conveyance which are consumable perks in the nature of reimbursements. Therefore, these have been rightly deducted from the gross salary while calculating the Income of deceased Shri Satypal Singh."
MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 10 of 2327. Accordingly, in view of above Judgment, transport allowance and washing allowance being consumable perk in the nature of reimbursements can not be granted to the petitioners.
28. Hence, after deducting the amount of transport allowance and washing allowance from the salary of deceased, the salary of deceased comes out to be Rs. 43,262/- (Rs.44,952/-
- Rs.1600/- - Rs.90/-) and the annual salary of deceased comes out to be Rs.5,19,144/- (Rs.43,262/- X 12).
29. In view of the settled law on subject, the tax liability of the deceased, if any, is to be reduced from his above annual earnings as his 'income' means the actual income less the tax paid, as was also approved in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. The last pay certificate of deceased of deceased for the month of July 2016 Ex.PW3/3 shows that a total amount of Rs.10,155/-, i.e. Rs.10,000/- towards GP Fund Subscription, Rs. 125/- towards CGHS and Rs.30/- towards CGEIS was being deducted from the salary of deceased for the month of July 2016. After giving the above benefits, an amount of Rs.7,121/- is required to be reduced towards income tax from earnings of the deceased. The net annual earnings of the deceased thus come to Rs.5,12,023/- (Rs.5,19,144/- - Rs. 7,121/-) and the monthly income of deceased is Rs.42,669/- per month.
30. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhaar card of deceased, in which the year of birth of deceased is found recorded as 1964. In last pay certificate of deceased for the month of July 2016 Ex. PW3/3, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 11 of 23 16.04.1964. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased as on the date of accident i.e. on 23.07.2016 was 52 years, 3 months and 7 days. 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 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the multiplier of '11' is applicable in the present case.
31. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by four petitioners and R-4, i.e. wife, two sons and two daughters of the deceased. As per PW2, her elder son has studied upto 8th Class and her younger son upto 9th Class. At the time of accident, the two sons were doing private jobs. As per financial statement of petitioner no. 1, they were currently unemployed. The petitioners and respondent no. 4 belong to poor socio economic background. Thus, the assertion of PW2 to the effect that the deceased paid his income to all his family members cannot be doubted.
32. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (civil) Nos. 976-977 of 2020), wherein it was held that the legal representatives who were earning meager income and were largely dependent upon the earning of the deceased are entitled for compensation.
33. In view of above judgment, all the four petitioners and respondents no. 4 are considered as dependent upon the deceased. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 12 of 23 Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th earning of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
34. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 15% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs. 48,57,866/- (rounded off) {(Rs.42,669/-X 12 X 11 X 3/4 X 115/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
35. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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'.
36. 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 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners and respondent no. 4 in this case are also entitled to an increase MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 13 of 23 @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners and respondent no. 4 are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,78,300/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 5 = Rs.2,42,000/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
37. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.51,36,166/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty Six only) (Rs.48,57,866/- + Rs. 2,78,300/-) 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
38. Out of the awarded amount, 60% amount is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share each is being awarded to petitioners no. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 4, i.e. children of deceased.
RELEASE
39. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 14 of 23 Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 150 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 150 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 Accounts opened/to opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 02.05.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
40. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 4, 90% amount each is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 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 their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 02.05.2018 and the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 15 of 23 be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
41. The disbursement to the petitioners 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.
42. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
43. 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 through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
44. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
45. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
46. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
47. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 16 of 23 the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
48. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
49. 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 petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
50. Respondents no. 2 and 3, being the owner of offending vehicle are 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.
51. The respondent no. 2 and 3 shall inform the petitioners, respondent no. 4 and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 17 of 2352. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to 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.
53. 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.
54. 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:
1. Date of the accident 23.07.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 20.12.2016
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
MACP No. 87/17
Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 18 of 23
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the NA as the offending Designated Officer by the Insurance vehicle is a Company. government vehicle
11. Whether the Designated Officer of NA the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or NA deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 07.04.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 02.05.2018 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned the petitioner(s) above MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 19 of 23
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
55. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 15.07.2025.Digitally signed by VRINDA
VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2025.04.07 16:25:23 +0530 Announced in the open court (Vrinda Kumari) on 07.04.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 20 of 23 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 23.07.2016
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Jagdish
3. Age of the deceased 52 years, 3 months and 7 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Govt. Job
5. Income of the deceased Rs.42,669/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Shammi 50 years Wife
ii) Sumit Ujjainwal 27 years Son
iii) Atul 29 years Son
iv) Shital 35 years Daughter
v) Preeti 31 years Daughter
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 42,669/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 6,400.35/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 12,267.33/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 36,802.02/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.4,41,624.24/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 11
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.48,57,866/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 21 of 23
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,42,000/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 50,86,166/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L) (after deducting
the amount of
Rs.50,000/-
towards interim
award)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date
AWARDED of filing of DAR till
the date of award to
be deposited within
30 days and 9%
thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.31,65,079/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.82,51,245/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 82,51,500/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=10% share
P-4=10% share
R-4=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share P-3=90% share P-4=90% share R-4=90% share MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 22 of 23
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 15.07.2025 award Digitally signed by VRINDA VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2025.04.07 16:25:33 +0530 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 07.04.2025 MACP No. 87/17 Shammi & Ors. Vs. Girish & Ors. 07.04.2025 Page 23 of 23