Delhi District Court
Sarita & Ors. vs . Deepak & Ors. on 18 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO : MACT01
(SOUTHWEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 415/16
Sarita & Ors. vs. Deepak & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010008082015
1. Smt. Sarita
W/o late Sh. Hariom
PAN: AVRPD2951K
Mobile No. 7827511275
2. Sh. Varun Kumar
S/o late Sh. Hariom
PAN: Not provided
Mobile No. 7827511275
3. Ms. Pallavi
D/o late Sh. Hariom
PAN: DBOPP4690F
Mobile No. 8383065269
4. Master Nikhil Kumar (now major)
S/o late Sh. Hariom
PAN: JIVPK5775G
Mobile No. 7827511275
(The petitioner no. 4 is now major,
however, at the time of accident petitioner no. 4
was minor and present petition was filed through his
natural guardian mother i.e. petitioner no. 1)
All R/o House No. Q92, BlockQ,
Bhagat Enclave, Bindapur Extn., Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi110059
... Petitioners
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 1 of 36
vs.
1. Sh. Deepak (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sampat Rao Nitanware
R/o Jingabai Takli, Mankapur,
Nagpur Road, P.S. Gitti Khadan
Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra
Mobile no. Not provided.
2. Sh. Charan Dass (Owner)
S/o Sh. Moreshwar Gajbhiye
R/o Sakin Plot No. 49, Kamgar Nagar,
Ishwar Nagar, Nagpur Tehsil Police Station
Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra
Mobile No. Not provided.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
(Erstwhile Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.
7th Floor, Mercantile House, KG Marg,
Cannaught Place, New Delhi
Nodal Officer : Ankit Mishra
Mobile no: 8828186716
Email ID : [email protected]
... Respondents
MACP No. : 418/16
Neeraj vs. Deepak & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010008092015
Neeraj
S/o Sh. Bhure Singh
R/o House No. E116, Mansa Ram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi110059
PAN :BGUPN2714H
Mobile no. 9599128373
...Petitioner
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 2 of 36
vs.
1. Sh. Deepak (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sampat Rao Nitanware
R/o Jingabai Takli, Mankapur,
Nagpur Road, P.S. Gitti Khadan
Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra
Mobile no. Not provided.
2. Sh. Charan Dass (Owner)
S/o Sh. Moreshwar Gajbhiye
R/o Sakin Plot No. 49, Kamgar Nagar,
Ishwar Nagar, Nagpur Tehsil Police Station
Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra
Mobile No. Not provided.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
(Erstwhile Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.
7th Floor, Mercantile House, KG Marg,
Cannaught Place, New Delhi
Nodal Officer : Ankit Mishra
Mobile no: 8828186716
Email ID : [email protected]
... Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No.415/16 23.12.2015
Date of institution of MACP No.418/16 23.12.2015
Date on which, judgment have been reserved11.02.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 18.02.2021
JUDGMENT:
1a) Vide this common judgment, this Tribunal shall dispose of two cases bearing MACP No. 415/16 and MACP No. 418/16 arising out of the same accident, which took place on 02.09.2015.
b) The first claim petition (bearing MACP No. 415/16) has been filed on behalf of petitioners Smt. Sarita & Ors. against respondent Deepak & Ors for grant MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 3 of 36 of compensation in respect of death of Sh. Hariom caused in the road traffic accident on 02.09.2015.
c) The connected claim petition (bearing MACP No. 418/16) has been filed on behalf of petitioner/injured Neeraj against respondents Deepak & Ors for grant of compensation qua the injuries sustained by him in the same road accident.
2. CLAIM
a) Brief facts as made out from the abovesaid petitions are that on 02.09.2015, at about 4:00 pm, one Sh. Hariom (since deceased) was going to meet his relative at Chhattishgarh by his Alto Car bearing no. DL5CK0689 being driven by his personal driver namely Neeraj.
b) When they reached the District Chhindwara Bypass Road, Near Jungabani, the offending vehicle (Innova Car) bearing no. MH31DC5121 came from opposite direction at a very excessive speed being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the Alto Car of the deceased from front side. Due to the said impact, Sh. Hariom, husband of the petitioner died on the spot and driver of the said Alto Car namely Neeraj also sustained fractures on his both legs and hands.
c) It is stated that after the accident, injured Neeraj and deceased Hariom were taken to District hospital, Chhindwara, M.P. where Hariom was declared brought dead and his postmortem was conducted at B.M.O Civil Hospital, Amarwara vide PM report no. 49/15.
d) It is further stated that petitioner Neeraj also sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and got discharged from the District Hospital, Chhindwara, M.P on 03.09.2015 and reached Delhi on 05.09.2015 where the petitioner / injured Neeraj got admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi and remained hospitalized from 05.09.2015 to 14.09.2015.
e) It is stated that the abovesaid accident was caused due to rash and negligent on the part of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle without obeying the traffic rules and regulations and in this regard a case was registered vide FIR MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 4 of 36 No.440/15 u/s 279/337/304A IPC at PS Amarwada, District Chhindwara, M.P.
f) It is further stated that deceased Hariom was running a rented shop of repairing the stereo car in the Janakpuri Market, New Delhi and was earning ₹80,000/ per month. It is stated that deceased was the sole bread earner of his family and due to his death, the petitioners have suffered pain, suffering and financial loss.
g) It is stated that petitioner / Neeraj was employed as Driver with deceased and getting salary of ₹15,000/ per month and due to the accident, he is unable to do the job of driver and was still under treatment.
h) It is stated in claim petition (bearing MACP No.415/16), it has been prayed that a compensation of ₹50,00,000/ along with interest @ 12% p.a. may be granted in favour of the petitioner / injured and against the respondents.
i) Further in claim petition (bearing MACP No.418/16), it has been prayed that a sum of ₹40,00,000/ may be awarded to the petitioner/injured as compensation against the respondents.
3. DEFENCES
a) The perusal of the record reveals that WS / reply have not been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 in both the cases.
b) Reply / Written Statement to the present claim petitions has been filed on behalf of R3 / Bharti AXA Gneral Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it has been stated that the contents of the petitions are matter of record, however liability, if any, of the respondent / Insurance company was subject to terms, conditions, exception and limitation of the insurance policy and involvement and negligence of vehicle in question.
c) It is further stated that the amount of compensation as claimed by the petitioners was highly exaggerated, frivolous, exorbitant and without any basis. Further, it has been prayed that the present petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 5 of 36
d) It was also contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the
victim.
e) It was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured vide policy /
Cover note no. S3627126 from 06.06.2015 to 05.06.2016 which covered the date of accident.
4. In the present cases, since common question of law and facts were involved in both these cases bearing MACP No.415/16 & MACP No.418/16, the common issues were framed and the same were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case bearing MACP No.415/16 as "Leading Case" vide order dated 23.05.2017 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the abovesaid cases / petition on 23.05.2017: ISSUES :
1. Whether Sh. Hariom S/o Shri Chunni lal sustained fatal injuries and Neeraj S/o Sh. Bhure Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 02.09.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (CAR) bearing No. MH31DC5121 being driven by Respondent No. 1 / Deepak owned by Respondent no. 2/ Charan Dass and insured by Respondent no. 3 / Bharti AXA General Insurance company Ltd. ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE In support of their case, petitioners have examined:
a) Petitioner no.1, Smt. Sarita as PW1. She has relied upon documents as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4 (colly).
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 6 of 36
b) Petitioner no. 2, Sh. Neeraj as PW2. He has relied upon documents as Ex. PW2/1(colly).
c) Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
6. In the instant cases, perusal of record reveals that no RE have been led on behalf of the respondents and on 30.05.2019, it was stated by Ld counsel for R3/ insurance company that no RE was led on behalf of the said respondent and accordingly, RE was closed vide order dated 30.05.2019. Vide same order, RE on behalf of R1 & R2 was also closed.
7. Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions considered.
8. The issuewise findings are as under :
9. ISSUE No. 1Whether Sh. Hariom S/o Shri Chunni lal sustained fatal injuries and Neeral S/o Sh. Bhure Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 02.09.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (CAR) bearing No. MH31DC5121 being driven by Respondent No. 1 /Deepak owned by Respondent no. 2/ Charan Dass and insured by Respondent no. 3 / Bharti AXA General Insurance company Ltd. ? ...OPP
a) The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 1 in both the cases bearing MACP NO. 415/16 & MACP No. 418/16 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined Smt. Sarita (PW1 in MACP No. 415/16) and Sh. Neeraj (PW2 in MACP No.418/16), who have filed their evidence by way of affidavits (Ex. PW1/A in MACP No. 415/16 and Ex. PW 2/A in MACP No. 418/16), wherein it has been stated that on 02.09.2015, at about 4:00pm, deceased Hariom was going to meet his relative at Chhattishgarh by his Alto MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 7 of 36 Car bearing no. DL 5CK0689 being driven by his personal driver namely Neeraj.
b) When they reached the District Chhindwara Bypass Road, Near Jungabani, the offending vehicle (Innova Car) bearing no. MH31DC5121 came from opposite direction at a very excessive speed being driven in a very rash and negligent manner hit the Alto Car of the deceased from front side. Due to the said impact, Sh. Hariom, husband of PW1 died on the spot and PW2 Neeraj, driver of the said Alto Car also sustained fractures on his both legs and hands.
c) Perusal of the record shows that after the accident, deceased Hariom, husband of PW1 and PW2 Neeraj were taken to District hospital, Chhindwara, M.P. where Hariom was declared brought dead and his postmortem was conducted at B.M.O Civil Hospital, Amarwara vide PM report no. 49/15 and PW2 Neeraj also sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
d) The important fact is that the abovesaid witness i.e. PW2 Neeraj was crossexamined on behalf of R3/ insurance company, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
e) In crossexamination of PW1 on behalf of R3/ insurance company, PW 1 stated that accident had not taken place in her presence and she was not an eye witness to the said accident.
f) During crossexamination of PW2 by the Ld. counsel for R3/Insurance company, PW2 denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his own fault. The driver of the offending car has not stepped into the witness box to present any alternative version regarding how the accident took place. Thus, the version of the petitioner is the only version on record worth relying on. Although, it was admitted by the eye witness that the accident was head on collision, the witness had denied that he was at fault. He also deposed that the accident took place on a single road, which means that vehicles from both sides were coming thereon. He has also deposed that the Innova Car came at high speed being driven in a very rash and negligent manner. Thus, there would have been little occasion for the witness to avoid the accident. There is no suggestion regarding the size of the road on which the vehicles were MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 8 of 36 being driven. Hence, no contributory negligence has been proved. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
g) Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Hariom received fatal injuries and died and petitioner/injuredNeeraj sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 02.09.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. MH31DC5121, which was being driven by R1 Deepak, owned by R2 Charan Dass and insured with R3/ Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident.
h) Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
10. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
a) The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in the case bearing MACP No. 415/16 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Sarita ( petitioner no. 1 in MACP No. 415/16), who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that she was wife of the deceased Hariom and was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. PW1 further deposed that on 02.09.2015 her husband Hariom met with an accident and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle No. MH31DC5121 and the case in this regard was registered vide FIR No.440/15 u/s 279/337/304A IPC at PS Amarwada, District Chhindwara, M.P. PW1 deposed that her deceased husband was running a rented shop of repairing car stereos in the Janakpuri Market, New Delhi MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 9 of 36 and was earning ₹80,000/ per month and he was contributing his entire income to the family. PW1 has also relied upon the documents i.e. copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1, certified copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/2, Certified copy of Chargesheet as Ex. PW1/3(colly) and Copy of insurance policy of respondent no. 1 as Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
b) Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceased Hariom received fatal injuries and died in motor vehicle accident dated 02.09.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. MH31DC5121, which was being driven by R1 Deepak, owned by R 2 Charan Dass and insured with R3/ Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceased Hariom have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased in the abovesaid accident.
11. Quantum of compensation payable to LRs of the deceased Hariom is ascertained under the following heads :
12. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per the postmortem report filed in respect of the deceased on record as part of the annexed DAR, he was '48' years of age at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of '13' is taken in this case.
13. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS
a) In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased - Hariom was married and has left behind four LRs i.e. petitioner no.1 Smt. Sarita (wife), petitioner no. 2 Varun Kumar (son), petitioner no. 3 Pallavi (daughter) and petitioner no. 4 Nikhil (son). Hence, the two unmarried sons, unmarried daughter and their mother, who were living with the deceased must be considered as dependents. Thus, the total number of dependents in MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 10 of 36 the present case would be 4. b) In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the
case titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr 1 one fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from the total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
14. INCOME AND PROFESSION
a) In the instant case, PW1 Smt. Sarita (wife / LR of deceased) deposed that at the time of accident, her deceased husband was running a rented shop of repairing the stereo car and was earning ₹80,000/ per month but no proof of income of her husband was placed on record. The deceased Hariom was permanent resident of Delhi. No evidence has been led regarding the skill or qualification of the deceased. Hence, the minimum wages for unskilled worker applicable in the State of Delhi when the accident took place (02.09.2015) shall be considered. The same are ₹9,048/ per month.
b) Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, the deceased would also have future prospects @ 25% as he was 48 years of age at the time of accident and can be said to be self employed.
15. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
a) In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
b) Hence, the same is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in this case and as such, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased Hariom can be calculated as under: 1 reported as (2009 )6SCC 121 2 2017 (13) SCALE 12 MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 11 of 36
Annual Income of the deceased (per annum) ₹1,08,576/
(9,048 X 12)
After adding 25% towards future prospects ₹1,35,720/
(1,08,576+27144)
Deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses ₹33,930 of deceased loss of dependency (D) ₹1,01,790/ (13572033930) Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of ₹13,23,270/ deceased (A X Multiplier i.e. 13)
c) Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Sh. Hariom comes to ₹13,23,270/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e.₹13,23,270/ as compensation under the head loss of dependency.
16. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi3, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded towards the head loss of estate.
17. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi4, a sum of ₹15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards funeral expenses.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 12 of 36
18. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Hariom, his widow and children i.e. petitioner no.1 Smt. Sarita (wife), petitioner no. 2 Varun Kumar (son), petitioner no. 3 Pallavi (daughter) and petitioner no. 4 Nikhil (son) have suffered loss of consortium. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the caseMagma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram 5 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Satinder Kaur6, a sum of ₹1,60,000/ (40,000 x 4) is awarded as compensation under the head loss of consortium.
19. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners / LRs of deceased Hariom have been tabulated as below: S. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1 Loss of dependency ₹13,23,270/ 2 Loss of consortium ₹1,60,000/ 3 For funeral expenses ₹15,000/ 4 Loss of estate ₹15,000/ TOTAL ₹15,13,270/ rounded off to ₹ 15,15,000/
20. Further, an interim award of ₹50,000/ has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 01.09.2016 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and accordingly, the said amount of interim award i.e. ₹50,000/ is required to be adjusted/deducted from the compensation amount i.e. ₹15,15,000/being awarded in this case and as such, the award amount in the instant case comes to ₹14,65,000/ (i.e. ₹15,15,000/ ₹50,000/).
5 2018 SCC Online SC 1546.
6 2020 SCC Online SC 410
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 13 of 36
21. INTEREST (in MACP bearing No. 415/16)
In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this casein view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.7 Hence, the petitioners / LRs of deceased Hariom are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation /award amount i.e. ₹14,65,000/(from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
22. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹14,65,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceasedSh. Hari om in the following manner with proportionate interest.
S. Name of the petitioner/relation Age (at the time Amount No. with deceased of accident)
1. Petitioner no.1 Smt. Sarita 43 Years ₹8,65,000/ (wife)
2. Petitioner no.2 -Sh. Varun 21 Years ₹2,00,000/ Kumar (son)
3. Petitioner no. 3 Pallavi 18 Years ₹2,00,000/ (daughter)
4. Petitioner no. 4 Nikhil (son) 14 Years ₹2,00,000/ Total ₹14,65,000/
23. RELIEF IN MACP No. 415/16 ( Sarita & Ors. Vs. Deepak & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹14,65,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lacs Sixty Five Thousand only) alongwith interest 7 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 14 of 36
@ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
24. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 02.09.2015
ii). Name of the deceased : Sh. Hariom
iii). Age of the deceased : 48 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Private Business (repairing car stereo)
v). Income of the deceased : ₹9,048/ (minimum wages)
vi). Name , age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
(i) Smt. Sarita 47 years Wife
(ii) Varun Kumar 25 years Son
(iii) Pallavi 22 years Daughter
(iv) Nikhil 18 years Son Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) ₹1,08,576/
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) ₹27,144
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) ₹33,930/
10. Monthly loss of dependency ₹1,01,790/ [ (A+B)C=D] 11. Multiplier (E) 13
12. Total loss of dependency (D x E=F) ₹13,23,270/ MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 15 of 36
13. Medical Expenses (G)
14. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
15. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) ₹1,60,000/ ₹40,000/X 4
16. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹15,000/
17. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) ₹15,000/
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹15,13,270/ rounded off to (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) ₹ 15,15,000/
19. Less Amount of Interim Award of ₹ 14,65,000/ ₹ 50,000/ (15,15,000 - 50,000)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
22. Total amount including interest ( L+M) ₹14,65,000/ + @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e.23.12.2015 till realization.
23. Award amount released As per table given below
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount By credit in the SB Account to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) of the petitioners
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 18.05.2022 (Clause 31)
25. Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner / LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 16 of 36 and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount of FDR No Award Amount
1. Smt. Sarita Wife of ₹8,65,000/ ₹1,45,000/ ₹7,20,000/be kept W/o Late Sh. deceased in 72 FDRs of Hari Om Hari Om 10,000/each for the period from one month to 72 months in the name of petitioner no.1 Smt. Sarita with cumulative interest.
2. Varun Kumar Son ₹2,00,000/ ₹56,000/ ₹1,44,0000/be kept in 12 FDRs of ₹12,000/each for the period from one month to 12 months in the name of petitioner no.2 Varun with cumulative interest.
3 Pallavi Daughter ₹2,00,000/ ₹56,000/ ₹1,44,0000/be kept
in 12 FDRs of
₹12,000/each for
the period from one
month to 12 months
in the name of
petitioner no.3
Pallavi with
cumulative interest.
4. Nikhil Son ₹2,00,000/ ₹56,000/ ₹1,44,0000/be kept
in 12 FDRs of
₹12,000/each for
the period from one
month to 12 months
in the name of
petitioner no.4 Nikhil
with cumulative
interest.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 17 of 36
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
26. a) The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 418/16 was upon the petitioner/injured Neeraj and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioner/ injured Neeraj has examined himself as PW2 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that he was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. PW1 further deposed that on 02.09.2015, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. MH31DC5121, which was being driven by R1 Deepak, owned by R2 Charan Dass and insured with R3/ Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. In his affidavit, PW1 has claimed compensation ₹40,00,000/ in the present case. He also deposed that at the relevant time, he was driver by profession and getting salary of ₹15,000/ per month. Whereas presently, he was not working.
b) Hence in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/ injured Neeraj sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 02.09.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. MH31DC5121, being driven by R1 Deepak, owned by R2 Charan Dass and insured with R3/ Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, the petitioner/ injured Neeraj has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
c) Accordingly, quantum of compensation payable to petitioner/ injured Neeraj is ascertained under the following heads:
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 18 of 36
27. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
a) As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner/ injured
Neeraj has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in this case.
b) Nature of injuries: As per Disability Certificate No. F1(1)/DDU/MB/2017/8344 dated 07/02/2017 issued by DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi the petitioner/ injured Neeraj is a case of Post Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb.
c) Period of hospitalization: As per Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Safdurjung Hospital, Delhi he was admitted in hospital from 05.09.2015 to 14.09.2015 i.e. about 10 days
d) Disability, if any: As per the aforesaid disability certificate, the petitioner suffers permanent physical disability of 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb.
28. MEDICINES & TREATMENT
a) In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Neeraj has undergone treatment at Safdurjung Hospital. He remained admitted at Safdurjung Hospital from 05.09.2015 to 14.09.2015.
b) Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured Neeraj has placed on record the total bills / receipt amounting to ₹2,33,096/, out of which medical bills are amounting to ₹1,45,955/ . (57+34+275+50+112+72+240+104+100+230+50+50+50+180+312+680+350+ 496+385+216+208+469+446+507+150+880+184+650+343+309+272+272+320+ 272+90+252+222+265+427+926+534+443+427+6300+938+322+322+322+4850 0+288+320+322+965+818+179+11,584+11,069+11,940+13,614+11994+13247) Hence, the medical bills are ₹1,45,955/. There is no reason to doubt the said MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 19 of 36
bills/receipts.
c) In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the
petitioner/ injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹1,45,955/ and accordingly, the petitioner/ injured Neeraj is awarded the said amount i.e. ₹1,45,955/ towards medicines and medical treatment.
29. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
a) In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Neeraj suffered Post Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb in the accident in this case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital / doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
b) In the instant case, the petitioner/injured has placed on record the total bills / receipt regarding the conveyance i.e. (1140+480+1580+1541+26400+12600+12600+12600+9100+9100) Bills towards Train and bus ticket, petrol bill (filled in ambulance of injured) and ambulance service are amounting to ₹87,141/. There is no reason to doubt the said bills. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹87,141/ towards conveyance charges.
c) Likewise, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet atleast for about six months to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded ₹30,000/ (@ 5,000/ per month) towards expenses for special diet.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 20 of 36
30. LOSS OF INCOME
a) In the present case, as per Aadhar card of petitioner / injured
Neeraj, he is permanent resident of Delhi. In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that at the time of the accident, he was having private service of driver and was earning about ₹15,000/ p.m., however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages for during the relevant period 02.09.2015 i.e. ₹9,048/ per month is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/ injured in this case (for unskilled worker, since no evidence of qualifications has been brought on record and driving licence of the injured is a private DL and not a commercial one).
b) In the instant case, petitioner/injured is a case Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb and has remained hospitalized for about 10 days. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about three months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹9048 x 6= ₹54,288/ under the head 'Loss of Income'.
31. ATTENDANT CHARGES
a) In the present case, the petitioner/injured Neeraj has deposed that he was attended by a person throughout since the day of accident, however neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
b) In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured - Neeraj is a case of Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 21 of 36
Further, he has placed on record documents regarding his hospitalization from 05.09.2015 to 14.09.2015. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured Neeraj must have required the services of attendant for about 6 months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of this family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita8 it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
c) Further, the petitioner must have spent atleast ₹ 5,000/ per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of ₹ 5,000 X 6 = ₹ 30,000/ towards 'Attendant Charges'.
32. PAIN & SUFFERINGS
a) As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
b) In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb and has remained hospitalized for about 10 days due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.9, 8 AIR 1981 Delhi 558 9 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012 MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 22 of 36 the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of ₹60,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
33. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 49 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered fracture. His disability would hinder his daily activities as well as his enjoyment of life. He will never be able to walk normally again. Loss of ability to indulge in physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall health. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain,10 the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of ₹60,000/ as compensation towards 'loss of enjoyment of life and amenities'. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of ₹20,000/ as compensation for 'mental and physical shock' suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
34. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS In the present case as per medical record, petitioner/injured Neeraj is an operated case of Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb and has remained hospitalized for about 10 days and as per the Disability Certificate issued by DDU Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner/injured -Neeraj is a case of Traumatic Arthritis of Left Ankle and subtalar joint with permanent physical disability is 43% in relation to Left Lower Limb. The petitioner has failed to furnish 10 Ibid MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 23 of 36 documents to show that at the time of the accident, he was being paid ₹ 15,000/ per month as salary. Hence, his income was calculated on the basis of minimum wages at the relevant time @ ₹9,048/ per month.
The principles for determining functional disability resulting from permanent physical impairment have been laid down in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar11. It is noteworthy that extent of physical impairment cannot automatically be taken to be the loss of earning capacity. The nature of avocation in which the petitioner was involved has to be considered. The record does not show the nature of the petitioner's employment. He merely deposed that he was having private job. It is stated by petitioner / injured in affidavit Ex.PW2/A that he was doing job of driver. Needless to say, he would be hindered from working as driver due to disability in his left lower limb. However, he would be able to do other works. Thus, the functional disability of the petitioner is taken to be at 25%.
Further, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi12, the petitioner is also entitled to future prospects.
Age: As per his Aadhar card, the petitioner was born on 18.11.1990. Thus, at the time of the accident, he was about 24 years old. Further, in terms of the principles laid down in the case Sarla Verma vs. DTC13 a multiplier of 18 would be applicable to the present case. Hence, he will be entitled to future prospects @ 40% as he was about 24 years of age at the time of accident and was having fixed salary. Therefore, the loss of future prospects / income is calculated as:
9048 x 12 x 25 x 140 X 18 = ₹6,84,028.80 100 100 Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of ₹6,84,028.80/ under this head.
11 (2011) 1 SCC 343 12 2017 (13) SCALE 12 13 AIR 2009 SC 3104 MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 24 of 36
35. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Neeraj is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment ₹1,45,955/
2. Conveyance ₹87,141/
3. Special Diet ₹30,000/
4. Loss of Income ₹54,288/
5. Attendant ₹30,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings ₹60,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities ₹60,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock ₹20,000/
9. Loss of Future Prospects ₹6,84,028.80/ Total ₹11,71,412.80 rounded off to ₹11,72,000/
36. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case, in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.14 Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e. ₹11,72,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
37. RELIEF IN MACP No. 418/16 ( Neeraj Vs. Deepak & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹11,72,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs Seventy Two Thousand only) alongwith interest 14 Supra, note 7 MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 25 of 36 @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Neeraj and against the respondents.
38. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 02.09.2015
ii). Name of the injured : Sh. Neeraj
iii). Age of the injured : 24 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured: At the time of accident, petitioner / injured was driver by profession.
v). Income of the injured : ₹9,048/ per month (minimum wages)
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Safdurjung Hospital, Delhi
by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : 02.09.2015 to 14.09.2015
ix). Whether any permanent : A case of Post Traumatic Arthritis of
disability?If yes, give details left Ankle and subtalar joint with
permanent physical disability is 43% in
relation to Left Lower Limb.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹1,45,955/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹87,141/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹30,000/
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 26 of 36
(iv) Cost of attendant ₹30,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income ₹54,288/
(vii) Any other loss which may require
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹20,000/
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹60,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹60,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 43% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 25% in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % ₹6,84,028.80/ Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation ₹11,71,412.80 rounded off to ₹11,72,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 9% per annum from award the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 27 of 36
17. Total amount including interest ₹11,72,000/ + interest @
9% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition
i.e. 23.12.2015 till
realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) Account of the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the 18.05.2022 award. ( Clause 31)
39. Further, the statement of petitioner/injuredNeeraj regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S. Name Age ( Status Amount of Release Amount /Period of N at Award Amount FDR o. prese nt)
1. Sh. Neeraj 31 Injured ₹11,72,000/ ₹2,12,000/ ₹9,60,000/ be kept S/o Sh. yrs in 48 FDRs of Bhure ₹20,000/ each for Singh the period from one month to 48 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 28 of 36
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
40. LIABILITY ( In both the cases bearing MACP No. 415/16 & MACP No. 418/16) Here, it is pertinent to mention that as per information received via email on 29th Sep, 2021, the insurance company i.e. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company has now been merged with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and now the liability shall be shifted towards ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company.
The offending vehicle no. MH31DC5121, was being driven by R1 Deepak, owned by R2 Charan Dass and insured with erstwhile Bharti AXA General Insurance company, at the time of accident which is now ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd and as such, respondent no. 3 / ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd shall be liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases bearing MACP No. 415/16 & MACP No. 418/16). Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
41. In both these cases bearing MACP No. 415/16 & MACP No.418/16 , the award amounts shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no. 3/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 'at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 29 of 36
42. In MACP No. 415/16, petitioner no. 1 Sarita Devi has stated that she is having a SB Account No. 53820100006913 at Bank of Baroda, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code: BARB0UTTAMX), PAN : AVRPD2981K and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 30 of 36 issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
43. Petitioner no. 2 Varun Kumar has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 50222555200 at Allahabad Bank, Binda Pur, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ALLA0210393) and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 31 of 36 automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
44. Petitioner no.3 Pallavi has stated that she is having a SB Account No. 2593101012442 at Canara Bank, Janakpuri near Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code: CNRB0002593), PAN DBOPP4690F and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 32 of 36
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
45. Petitioner no.4 Nikhil has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 50329334553 at, Allahabad Bank, Binda Pur, New Delhi (IFSC Code:
ALLA0210393), PAN : JIVPK5775G and it is being requested that the above said cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 33 of 36 the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
46. In MACP No. 418/16, petitioner no. 1 Neeraj has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 610310110002004 at Bank of India, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi (IFSC Code:BKID0006103), PAN BGUPN2714H and it is being requested that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid saving banks account of the said petitioner and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 34 of 36 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors).
Manager of the bank where the said petitioner is having the aforesaid saving bank account (Herein after referred to as the petitioner's bank) is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the said petitioner, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The abovesaid Petitioner's bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioner to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
47. R3 / The insurance company shall inform the petitioner(s) as well as counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner(s) to know about the deposit in the account.
Copy of this award be sent through email to Sh. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager (Nodal Officer), State Bank of India at his email ID :
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 35 of 36
[email protected] in terms of Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2003. Certified copy of the award be also sent to the manager of the concerned bank(s) where the petitioner(s) is/are having respective savings bank account(s).
Certified copy of this award be given 'Dasti' to the petitioner(s) as well as counsel and respondents as well as counsel.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading/ main case bearing MACP No.415/16 and the copy thereof be placed in the file of connected case bearing MACP No. 418/16.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare the separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 18.05.2022.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed SUMEDH by SUMEDH
KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2022.02.19
(Announced in the open Court
SETHI 18:07:24 +0530
on 18th day of February, 2022) (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
18.02.2022
MACP No. 415/16 Sarita vs. Deepak & Ors.
MACP No. 418/16 Neeraj vs Deepak & Ors. 36 of 36