Delhi District Court
Gur Devi Kaur And Ors (F) (Petition) vs Mandeep Singh And Others on 9 September, 2024
DLCT010068282020
Presented on : 15-10-2020
Registered on : 16-10-2020
Decided on : 09-09-2024
Duration : 03 Years 11
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 474/20
1. GUR DEVI KAUR
W/o Sh. Faqir Singh
2. FAQIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Ugager Singh
Both R/o H.No.-9A-1,
Block, Gali No. 10, Sant Nagar,
Kamal Pur, Majra Burari,
Delhi-110084. ......Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. MANDEEP SINGH
S/o Sh. Mehar Chand
R/o V. Bakhli The Pehowa,
Distt. Kurukshetra-136128.(DRIVER).
2. BALWINDER SINGH
S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh
R/o H.No. 430 W. No.4,
Sayalkoti Farm Pehowa,
Kurukshetra-136128. (OWNER).
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 1/20
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Floor No. 8, Kanchanjunga,
Building 8th, 909, Barakhamaba Road,
Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Delhi-110001. (INSURER).
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 27/06/20
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident N.A. Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 09/09/24 MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 2/20
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 4/12/23 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 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. 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 the H.No.-9A-
Claimant(s). 1,
Block, Gali
No. 10, Sant
Nagar,
Kamal Pur,
Majra
Burari,
Delhi-
110084
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 16/10/2020 seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Faqir Singh (hereinafter MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 3/20 referred to as "deceased") due to a motor vehicular accident dated 27/06/2020. As per petition, on 27/06/2020 at about 07.30 A.M, the deceased was returning home by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBX-9667 (make hero splendor) from Punjab and when he reached at Village Pattikalayana near Sheela Resort, at G.T. Road, Delhi then an Innova bearing registration no. HR-76B-6025 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came in very fast speed and all of sudden the driver of the offending vehicle hit the deceased/ injured and due to this powerful impact the deceased/ injured sustained grievous injuries and sent to the PGI Hospital, Rohtak, Haryana and after that referred him to AIIMS Hospital, Delhi and during treatment doctor of AIIMS declared him died. It is further stated that the accident occurred on the sole negligence of the driver of the above said Innova. As per petition, the deceased was 44 years old, was doing a private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the abovesaid accident. An FIR no. 0377/2020 PS Samalkha, Haryana U/s 279/304A IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
2. R-1 and R-2 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 13/12/2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
3. R-3/ Insurance Company filed a Written Statement wherein it denied the contents of petition in toto. However, it is MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 4/20 admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 04/12/2023 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Manjeet Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 27.06.2020 at about 07.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-76B-6025 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
5. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Gur Devi Kaur, mother of the deceased, as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased who was her son lost his life on 27/06/2020 due to an accident involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was 44 years old, was doing a private job and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs. 22,000/- per month from his job. She further deposed that the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased, were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She relied upon following MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 5/20 documents :-
"Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly) (OSR) is copies of Aadhar Card of PW-1 and deceased;
Ex.PW-1/2 certified copy of post mortem of deceased;
Ex.PW-1/3 is copy of death certificate of deceased;
Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) is certified copy of the mechanical Inspection report of the victim's vehicle (DL85BX9667), offending vehicle (HR76B6025), FIR bearing No. 377/2020 registered at PS Samalkha, Panipat alongwith Chargesheet ''.
5.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company Only. In her cross-examination she deposed that the deceased was married and out of the said wedlock one child namely Guransh was born. She further deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was divorced and at the time of filing of present case no divorce certificate was filed. She denied the suggestion that she has filed the present petition to take over the entire compensation of her deceased son. She further denied the suggestion that her deceased son was not working at the time of accident.
5.2 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 6/20 FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties..
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
" Whether the deceased Sh. Manjeet Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 27.06.2020 at about 07.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-76B-6025 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP''
9. 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 by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 7/20 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined PW-1 Smt. Gur Devi Kaur, mother of the deceased as PW-1 deposed vide her affidavit Ex. PW2/A, at the relevant time, the deceased was returning home by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBX-9667 (make hero splendor) from Punjab and when he reached at Village Pattikalayana near Sheela Resort, at G.T. Road, Delhi then an Innova bearing registration no. HR-76B-6025 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came in very fast speed and all of sudden the driver of the offending vehicle hit the deceased/ injured and due to this powerful impact the deceased/ injured sustained grievous injuries and sent to the PGI Hospital, Rohtak, Haryana and after that referred him to AIIMS Hospital, Delhi and during treatment doctor of AIIMS declared him died. It is further stated that the accident occurred on the sole negligence of the driver of the above said Innova. As per petition, the deceased was 44 years old, was doing a private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the abovesaid accident. She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. Nothing favourable to the respondents came in the cross examination of this witness. As such, the testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A 427 IPC in the MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 8/20 above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle, and Postmortem Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) was hit the deceased at the relevant time. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 9/20 gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
15. In view of the contents of the FIR as well as the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
18. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 10/20
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Smt. Gur Devi Kaur as PW-1. PW-1 has deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 44 years old, was doing a private job and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs. 22,000/- per month as salary. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an Unskilled-Person in Delhi at the time of accident i.e. 27/06/2020 were Rs.15,310/- per month.
20. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of Adhar Card of deceased Ex. PW1/1. As per said document the date of birth of deceased was 01/01/1976. The date of accident is 27/06/2020 Apparently, the age of deceased was 44 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '14' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
21. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his parents. However, Petitioner No. 1 (mother of the deceased) is considered dependent upon the deceased.
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 11/20
22. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 44 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 25% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
23. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.16,07,550/- (Rs.15,310/- X 125/100 X 1/2 X 12 X 14). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
24. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Filial Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2) MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 12/20
25. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,28,000/-(Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 88,000/- ) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
26. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.17,35,550/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only) (Rs.16,07,550/- + Rs.1,28,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 16/10/2020. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
27. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
27.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 90 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 90 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 13/20 be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.4,21,569/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Nine Only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
27.2 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs.57,787/- ( Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Seven Only). The entire awarded amount be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 2.
28. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 14/20 residence.No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
29. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
30. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 15/20 the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
32. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 09.10.2024.
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA On this 09.09.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/09/09/2024 MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 16/20 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 27/06/2020
2. Name of the deceased : Sh.Manjeet Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 44 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Private Job
5. Income of the deceased :
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Smt. Gur Devi Kaur 67 Years Mother of the
deceased
(2) Faqir Singh 81 Years Father of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs.15,310/- per month
deceased(A)
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 17/20
8. Add-Future Prospects 25% (B)
9. Less-Personal One half deduction has been expenses of the done deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.9,568.75/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.1,14,825/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '14'
13. Total loss of Rs.16,07,550/-
dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss Rs. 88,000/-
of consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss NIL of love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss Rs. 20,000/-
MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 18/20 of estate(J)
18. Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.17,35,550/-
COMPENSATION(
F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF 8%
INTEREST
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to Rs.5,43,806/- (rounded off) the date of award(M)
22.
Total amount Rs.22,79,356/-
including interest(L +
M)
23.
Award amount P-1 : Rs.4,21,569/-
released
P-2 : Rs.57,787/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award of the award amount to the petitioner (s) MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 19/20
26.
Next date for 09/10/2024
compliance of the
award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 09.09.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 09.10.2024.
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/09/09/2024 MACT No. 474/20 Gur Devi Kaur & Anrs. Vs. Mandeep Singh & Ors. Pages No. 20/20