Delhi District Court
Smt. Yasmeen Begum vs Mohd. Akhtar on 18 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
P.O. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT : KKD COURTS : DELHI
1. MACT No. 68/12
Unique Case Identification No:- 02402C0044772012
1. Smt. Yasmeen Begum
W/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 46 years (Widow)
2. Mohd. Jahangeer Husain@ Raju
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 28 years (Son)
3. Mohd. Kadir Husain
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 23 years (Son)
4. Javed Husain
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 22 years (Son)
5. Abid Husain
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 18 years (Son)
6. Ms. Sabuka Bano
D/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 17 years (Daughter)
7. Ms. Shaista Bano
D/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 16 years (Daughter)
8. Ms. Rajiya Sultana
D/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 15 years (Daughter)
9. Ms. Saba Praveen
D/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 14 years (Daughter)
10. Sajid Husain
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 13 years (Son)
11. Sadik Hussain
S/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 08 years (Son)
12. Ms. Salma Bano
D/o Late Mohd. Hasan aged about 06 years (Daughter)
13. Nahima Khatun
W/o Late Mohd. Sattar aged about 70 years (Mother)
R/o H.No. J-4/10, Gali No.6, 4th Pusta,
Kartar Nagar, Delhi
(Petitioner no. 6 to 12 being minor are represented
through their mother Yasmeen Begum / Natural Guardian / petitioner no.1)
...... Petitioners
2. DAR No. 73A/12
Unique Case Identification No:- 02402C0379232012
Kiran Bansal
P.OMACT (NorthEast)
MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 1/15
1. Reshma
D/o Late Sh. Mohd. Hasan
R/o J4/10, Gali No. 6,
4th Pusta, Kartar Nagar, Delhi-53
Versus
1. Mohd. Akhtar
S/o Sh. Karemuddin
R/o Happur Road,
Meerut, U.P. (Driver)
2. Rahisuddeen
S/o Sh. Sirajuddeen
R/o 87, Village Bhadar Pur,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. (Owner)
3.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ground Floor, Amardeep Building -14,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi. (Insurance Company)
......... Respondents
i) Date of Institution of Claim Petition : 13/02/2012
ii) Date of Institution of DAR : 27/02/2012
iii) Date of Decision : 18/11/2015 APPLICATION U/S 166 & 140 M.V. ACT 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION AWARD
1. By this common order I shall dispose off the claim petition titled as Yasmeen Begum Vs. Mohd Akhtar bearing MACT No. 68/12 and DAR titled as Reshma Vs. Mohd. Akhtar bearing DAR No. 73A/12 as both the cases are arising out of the same accident. The evidence of R1W1, R2W1, R3W1 and R3W2 led in both the cases is common.
Briefly the facts are that on 19/01/2012 Mohd. Hasan, his daughter Reshma and other family members were sleeping in the Jhuggi built on Plot No. J-4/10, Gali No. 1 Kartar Nagar, Open Plot, Near Nala, 4th Pusta, Delhi, P.S. New Usman Pur. At about 11:30 PM a Tractor bearing no. UP 14BL 1969 attached with a trolly filled Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 2/15 with sand which was being driven by its driver/Respondent No.1 allegedly came in a rash & negligent manner without blowing any horn. The vehicle was forwarded and backwarded in the plot area where the Jhuggi of Mohd. Hasan is laid. In this process, respondent no. 1 could not control the tractor due to which he lost control over the tractor and it over turned and Mohd. Hasan came under the Tractor while Reshma came under the overturned trolly due to which deceased Mohd. Hasan sustained grievous fatal injuries and Reshma received simple injuries. He was immediately taken to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi where he was declared brought dead. The FIR No. 10/2012 u/sec 279/337/304-A IPC was also registered at P.S New Usmanpur in this respect.
2. Summons of the claim petition were issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have jointly filed their WS denying the averments made in the petition and stated that no accident took place with their vehicle and that their vehicle has been falsely implicated..
Respondent no. 3 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co Ld. has also filed WS. They have not denied that the offending vehicle was insured with them for the period from 18/08/2011 to 17/08/2012 in the name of Sh. Rahisuddeen bearing policy No. 2316200133927300000.
In the DAR name of the injured was given as Smt. Reshma whereas in the petition filed by the Lrs of Mohd. Hasan, no such name existed in the list of Lrs of Mohd. Hasan. Smt. Reshma is stated to be daughter of Mohd. Hasan and therefore, IO was directed to make inquiry. IO reported that Ms. Reshma and Shaista Bano i.e petitioner no. 7 in the MACT No. 68/12 are one and the same person.
3. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed in MACT No. 68/12
1) Whether deceased died because of injuries sustained in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e Tractor bearing registration no. UP 14BL 1969, by respondent no. 1 on 09/01/2012 at about 11:30 p.m., near J-4/10, Gali No. 6, Kartar Nagar, Open Plot near Nala, 4th Pushta, Delhi within Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 3/15 the jurisdiction of P.S. New Usmanpur ? OPP
2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP
3) Whether there is willful and deliberate breach of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent no. 2? If so, its consequences? OPD
4) Relief After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed in DAR No. 73A/12
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e Tractor bearing registration no. UP 14BL 1969, by respondent no. 1 on 09/01/2012 at about 11:30 p.m., near J-4/10, Gali No. 6, Kartar Nagar, Open Plot near Nala, 4th Pushta, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. New Usmanpur ? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether there is willful and deliberate breach of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent no. 2? If so, its consequences? OPD
4. Relief
4. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire evidence on record carefully. My issue wise findings are as below :
5. ISSUE NO. 1 in MACT No. 68/12 & DAR 73A/12 Issues no. 1 in both the cases being similar is taken up together.
Whether deceased died because of injuries sustained in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e Tractor bearing registration no. UP 14BL 1969, by respondent no. 1 on 09/01/2012 at about 11:30 p.m., near J-4/10, Gali No. 6, Kartar Nagar, Open Plot near Nala, 4 th Pushta, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. New Usmanpur ? OPP Smt. Yasmeen Begum has examined herself as PW1 and Sh. Reshma as PW2 who was an eye witness to the accident and also an injured. She deposed about the facts of the case. She was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for respondents and during Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 4/15 cross-examination nothing has come forward in her testimony to disbelieve the version of PW2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi has been examined as PW3. Respondent no. 1 / driver has examined himself as R1W1 and respondent no. 2 / owner has examined himself as R2W1. Respondent no. 3 has examined Sh. Shyama Charan Vats as R3W1.
PW2 has clearly described the manner of accident and has stated that the offending vehicle while moving forward and backward and placing its position, and during the process it lost its balance and turned on their jhuggi due to which deceased came under the offending vehicle and the injured, Reshma @ Shaista Bano also received injuries.
PW2 Smt. Reshma @ Shaishta Bano has clearly deposed that she alongwith her father and family members were in Jhuggi built on Plot No. J-4/10, Gali No.1, Kartar Nagar, Open Plot Near Nala, 4th Pusta, Delhi, P.S. New Usman Pur at around 11:00 PM. The tractor bearing no. UP 14BL 1969 attached alongwith a trolley came in rash and negligent manner and without blowing the horn was being forwarded and backwarded and in the process driver could not control the tractor and it overturned . Her father came under the tractor while she came under the trolley. Her father received fatal injuries. During cross-examination she has deposed that there was only one offending vehicle at that time. She has further stated that she was sitting on the bed and she saw the offending vehicle arriving at Jhuggi and the tractor came there to unload the sand. She has stated that the tractor and trolley turned and fell on Jhuggi. She has denied the suggestion that the accident took place outside the Jhuggi and she was sleeping outside the Jhuggi. The accident is dated 19/01/2012 and it is winter season in January in Delhi and the injured and deceased could not be expected to have been sleeping outside the Jhuggi during cold winter night. Driver Sh. Mohd. Akhtar in his examination in chief has stated that his vehicle has not caused any accident and the registration number of his vehicle was noted down by someone and reported to the police and his vehicle has been involved in false criminal case. During cross-examination he has admitted that he has left the tractor alongwith trolley Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 5/15 on fourth pusta and ran away from the spot when he saw the crowd collected and creating hue and cry. He has admitted that the criminal case has been registered against him and that the tractor alongwith trolley as well as DL were seized by the police. Though, he has denied that the accident took place due to his vehicle however, he has failed to explain why his vehicle would be falsely implicated without any previous enmity. He has also failed to explain why he ran away after leaving the vehicle on fourth pusta and why crowd gathered and created hue and cry if no accident took place with his vehicle. According to him during his cross-examination, he ran away from the place at around 10:30 AM. His examination in chief is silent as to when and where he had left the offending vehicle. In his cross-examination also it is not clear as to whether the time 10:30 AM is of 09/01/2012 or 10/01/2012. Admittedly, tractor was left alongwith trolley at fourth pusta and the accident also occurred at fourth pusta, New Usman Pur. Under what circumstances tractor and trolley was left by the driver and why he ran away and why crowd gathered and created hue and cry remained unexplained on the part of the driver. Driver has admitted that he is facing trial in the criminal court and has been chargesheeted by the IO.
In the present case DAR was filed which includes copy of FIR, Postmortem report, site plan and Mechanical inspection report.
Also, to determine the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court 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 and the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 6/15 required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed 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.
Further the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 7/15 Therefore, from the statement of PW2 Reshma and in view of the DAR, it is proved that the deceased Mohd. Hasan sustained fatal injuries and Ms. Reshma received simple injuries in the accident which occurred on 19/01/2012 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. UP 14BL 1969 driven by its driver i.e Respondent no. 1. The issue is decided accordingly.
6. ISSUE NO. 2 in MACT No. 68/12Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP Smt. Yasmeen Begum wife of deceased has been examined as PW1. Her affidavit is Ex. PW1/A in which she has stated that deceased was working as a Rickshaw Puller and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof regarding the income of the deceased has been placed on record therefore, income of the deceased is assessed as per the minimum wages of unskilled on the date of accident i.e Rs. 6656/- per month.
As per the Adhar card Ex. PW1/1, year of birth of deceased was 1963. As per Postmortem report, the age of deceased was 48 years therefore, the age of the deceased is taken to be between 46-50 years.
In the judgement Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others MANU/SC/0640/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/05/2015, it has been held that multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. It was further held that 50% of the deduction is to be made in case of bachelor. On the aspect of future prospects, it was also held that in case of self employed persons also, if the deceased is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects.
As per dictum laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC , multiplier to be applied is
13. In the present case there are 13 petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 is wife of deceased, petitioner no. 2 to 5 are major sons & petitioner no. 10 & 11 are minor sons , petitioner no. 6 to 9 & 12 are minor daughters and petitioner no. 13 is mother of deceased. Deceased therefore, had more than 6 dependents so, 1/5th is deducted Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 8/15 towards personal expenses. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be calculated as follows :
Rs. 6656/- per month + Rs. 1996.8 (30% future prospects) = Rs. 8652.8 - Rs. 1730.56 (1/5th personal expenses) = Rs. 6922.24 per month Rs. 6922.24 X 12 X 13 (Multiplier) = Rs. 1079869.44/- = Rs. 1079869/- (rounded off) Besides this, petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the following heads:-
Love and affection Rs. 100,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 100,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.2,35,000/-
Thus, the total compensation would amount to Rs. 13,14,869/- ISSUE NO. 2 in DAR bearing No. 73A/12 After careful perusal of the medical documents and in view of the simple injuries suffered by the injured Ms. Reshma, I am of the opinion that a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- would be as just and reasonable compensation for the injuries suffered by Ms. Reshma .
7. ISSUE NO. 3 in MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Whether there is willful and deliberate breach of terms and conditions of the policy by respondent no. 2? If so, its consequences? OPD Respondent no.3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy to the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 being insurance company in its written statement has not denied that the offending vehicle was insured with them for the period from 18/08/2011 to 17/08/2012 in the name of Sh.
Rahisuddeen bearing policy No. 2316200133927300000. Respondent no. 3 has examined Sh. Shyama Charan Vats as R3W1. Ld. counsel for insurance co. has argued that statement of eye witness has established that the tractor had came there Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 9/15 for unloading of sand and therefore, trolley was not used for agricultural purposes and therefore, owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also argued that only the tractor was insured and as the trolley was not insured, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Mohd. Akhtar R1W1 in his examination in chief has stated that vehicle was never used in any commercial work and was always used for agricultural work. However, he has failed to explain what was loaded in his vehicle on the day of accident and for what agricultural purpose he has taken agricultural vehicle to fourth pusta, New Usmanpur. The owner Sh. Rahisuddin has also examined himself as R2W1 and his examination in chief is on similar lines as of driver.R2W1 has also admitted that his tractor was seized by the police. He has admitted that trolley was attached with the tractor on the day of accident. He has further stated that the tractor is generally used for agricultural purposes and he owns agricultural land in Delhi and U.P. According to R1W2 when he had gone in search of driver to the PS his driver was accompanying him but as per the driver Mohd. Akhtar when owner had gone to look out the vehicle he has not accompanied the owner but accompanied the owner only to the PS. Both the witnesses have failed to disclose what was loaded in the tractor and trolley at the time when the vehicle was allegedly left by the driver and he had run away after he saw the crowd collected and creating hue and cry. On the other hand eye witness has deposed that tractor and trolley has come to the vacant plot to unload the sand and while doing so the driver had lost control over the tractor and it had overturned.
Section 2 (44) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a tractor as follows:-
"2(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road- roller,"
A light motor vehicle is defined to include a tractor and the relevant provision, namely, Section 2 (21) reads as follows"-
(21) " light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 10/15 gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms;". Similarly, section 2 (47) defines a transport vehicle as follows:-
"transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;"
Section 2 (14) defines a 'goods carriage' as follows:-
"goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;
The Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 364 in para 24 held as follows:-
24. ... Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under section 2 (14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under section 2 (47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods.
Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor trailer in the present case falls under Section 2 (14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2 (47) of the MV Act, 1988." Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature."
This was a case pertaining to a tax levied under the Karnataka Motor Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 11/15 Vehicle Taxation Act. The appellant in that case had used the vehicle for transporting over-dimensional cargo and was using a drawing vehicle which the appellant call a 'tractor' to push/pull the loaded trailer. Hence, the vehicle being used therein though described as tractor trailer, was a different kind of vehicle.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court while interpreting the above judgement in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Tarun Kaura & Ors (FAO 2887/2008 decided on 02.03.2010) held as follows:-
"The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be read to mean, that the person holding a driving licence to drive a tractor cannot drive, it with the trolley attached to it. Trolley is an agricultural equipment, therefore, the driver holding a driving licence to drive tractor can always drive tractor along with the trolley".
The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Brij Mohan, AIR 2007 SC 1971 held that a tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not be a goods carriage. A tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. A trailer attached to the tractor is necessarily required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It further mentioned that carriage of vegetables for being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes. The Court further noted that where the tractor and trailer were being used to transport vegetable to the market for purpose of sale, then it could not be termed to be agricultural purpose. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
"16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus necessarily it required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 12/15 in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereaof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes...."
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjay Singh in MAC. APP. 561/2012 decided on 08/05/2014 has held that a tractor is a LMV and that no separate endorsement is required on the driving licence for driving a tractor and a person having a driving licence for driving LMV can drive a tractor.
Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 has relied upon judgment titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. P. Vinayaga Sundaram and Others 2013 (3) T.A.C. 418 (Mad) wherein facts were while unloading sand, deceased was covered by sand and expired. It was held that tractor was used for unloading sand in land belonging to owner of vehicle and loading and unloading in an agricultural field by tractor was treated as a part of agricultural work and insurance co. was held liable to pay compensation.
It is argued that the facts of the present case are similar and therefore, insurance co. is liable to pay compensation. However, it is felt that the facts of the present case are not similar to the facts of the case relied upon in as much as in the case relied upon loading and unloading of sand was done in the agricultural field belonging to the owner of the vehicle. No document has been placed on record to show that the place where unloading of sand was done was belonging to respondent. During the course of arguments it is also argued that the respondents have agricultural land in Delhi and U.P. and therefore, they were loading and unloading the sand for their agricultural land. Again no document has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the respondent is owner of agricultural land in Delhi and U.P. In the absence of any document to support the fact that loading and unloading of sand was done for agricultural purposes or at the agricultural field of the owner of offending vehicle, I am unable to accept the contention of counsel for respondent no.
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 13/15 1 and 2 that the unloading of sand was done for agricultural purposes.
Tractor was thus, used for purpose other than agricultural purposes and hence, insurance co. is entitled to recovery rights and it is directed that Insurance Co. shall first satisfy the award and thereafter, may recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2.
8. Relief Award is passed directing Respondent no. 3, M/s HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the claimants/petitioners a sum of Rs. 13,14,869/- (including interim compensation, if any) by way of depositing cross cheques in favour of petitioners in proportions of 40% and 5% each to petitioner no. 2 to 13 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (i.e. 13/02/2012) and Rs. 20,000/- to Ms. Reshma with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR (i.e. 27/02/2012). If award is not complied within 30 days, respondent no. 3 shall pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. for the default period. Upon deposit of award amount, cheques be deposited in any nationalized bank and the bank manager of said bank is directed to prepare FDRs of the 50% of the award amount as per the share of petitioners no. 1 in her respective names for a period of five years with monthly interest to be credited in her saving bank accounts and the remaining amount be released to the petitioner no. 1. Share of petitioner no. 9 to 12 be kept in FDR till majority. Branch Manager of the Bank shall also comply with following directions :-
(a) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioners after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card of petitioners to facilitate identity.
(b) No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of the court.
(c) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the petitioners along with photocopy of the FDRs.
Kiran Bansal P.OMACT (NorthEast) MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 14/15
(d) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the petitioners on the expiry of the period of the FDRs.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of the court.
(f) The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to the Branch Manager, any nationalized bank.
10. Put up for compliance on 18/12/2015.
Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties from court for compliance.
Pronounced in Open Court on (KIRAN BANSAL)
18/11/2015 P.O. MACT(North-East)
KKD Delhi
Kiran Bansal
P.OMACT (NorthEast)
MACT No. 68/12 & DAR No. 73A/12 Page 15/15