Delhi District Court
Fuliya Devi & Ors. vs . Krishna Das-K & Anr. on 28 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
FULIYA DEVI & ORS. VS. KRISHNA DAS-K & ANR.
DAR NO. 38/20
1. Smt. Fuliya Devi
W/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
2. Sh. Aravind Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
3. Sh. Pavan Chaudhari
S/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
4. Ms. Babita
D/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
5. Sh. Rajan Sahni
S/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
6. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
7. Ms. Sarswati Kumari
D/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
8. Ms. Durga Kumari
D/o Late Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
R/o A-358, Main Road, Manglapuri, Phase-2,
Palam Village, Delhi-110045.
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.1 of 23
Permanent R/o Village Keshopatti, Post Office Mukhtapur,
Ward No. 12, PS Kalyanpur, District Samastipur,
Bihar-848102.
......Petitioners/claimants being
LRs of deceased Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
Versus
1. Sh. Krishna Das-K (Driver of offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Kasi,
R/o IHQ of MOD Army, TPT Unit,
ASC Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o Village Nerukukkadu,
PO Verkoli, Polpully Palakkad, Kerala-678552.
2. IHQ of MOD (Owner of offending vehicle)
Army Transport Unit, ASC Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 17.01.2020
Date of framing of issues : 19.01.2021
Date of concluding arguments : 28.11.2022
Date of decision : 28.11.2022
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Anandi DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.2 of 23 Chaudhary in a road accident that took place on 24.11.2019, at about 01.45 pm, Near Jharera Village Bus Stop, Opposite Western Air Command, Gurugram to Dhaula Kaun Road, NH-8, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.287/19, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The vehicle involved in this case is a SX4 car bearing registration No. 11B108010M, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) and owned by respondent no. 2 (R2).
2. Succinctly put, facts of case, as per petition, are that the claimants are the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. On the above said date and time, the deceased Sh. Anandi Chaudhary was walking on foot at the extreme left side of the road. When he reached near Jharera Village Bus Stop, Opposite Western Air Command, Gurgram to Dhaula Kaun Road, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi at about 01.45 pm, the offending vehicle, i.e. SX4 car bearing registration No. 11B108010M, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed had hit the deceased from behind due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to RR Hospital by R-1 himself in the offending vehicle, where his MLC was prepared and he was brought declared dead by the doctors.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement to the DAR wherein it is stated that the respondent no. 1 was having a valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further stated that no accident took place with the offending vehicle. It is also further stated that the deceased himself was negligent while crossing the road and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
4. On 19.01.2021, the following issues were framed by this DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.3 of 23 tribunal:-
1. Whether Sh. Anandi Chaudhary sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2019 at about 01.45 pm, Near Jharera Village Bus Stop, Opposite Western Air Command, Gurugram to Dhaula Kaun Road, NH-8, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. SX4 car No. 11B108010M driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no.2 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.
5. The Tribunal has heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Manoj Goel, Advocate for the petitioners and Sh. Satender Tiwari along with Sh. Chandan Mishra, Advocates for the respondents and has perused the entire record, including the case laws filed on record.
6. During course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that there is no statutory defence available with respondents and the involvement of vehicle in question is also not in dispute as the chargesheet has been filed against the respondent no. 1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondents has argued that there is no eye witness to the alleged accident. The vehicle in question was not involved in the present accident as the deceased was not hit by respondent no. 1, but by some other vehicle, however, after being hit, he fell on the vehicle of respondent no. 1 who took him to the hospital, but sadly, he was arraigned as an accused in the criminal matter and respondent herein. He has also argued that the negligence of respondent no. 1/driver has not been proved on record and DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.4 of 23 hence, no claim shall be granted to the petitioners.
7. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following judgments which have been dealt in Issue No. 1.
(i) Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr., 2013 LawSuit (SC) 943.
(ii) Basant Kaur Vs. Chatarpal Singh, 2001 LawSuit (MP) 216.
(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja Bhatia & Ors., 2013 LawSuit (Del) 1476.
(iv) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858.
(v) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors., 2007 LawSuit (Del) 2353.
(vi) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Joginder Singh & Ors., 2015 LawSuit (Del) 2459.
(vii) UPSRTC & Anr. Vs. Sandhya & Anr., 2017 LawSuit (Del) 2459.
(viii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar & Ors., 2018 LawSuit (Del) 2693.
(ix) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anita & Ors., decided on 24.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in MAC Appeal No. 436/2018.
(x) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 LawSuit (Del) 488.
(xi) Jamanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Rai & Ors., decided on 19.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC Appeal No. 831/2015.
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.5 of 23
(xii) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rani, 2005 LawSuit (All) 1380.
(xiii) Meera Devi & Anr. Vs. HRTC & Ors., 2014 LawSuit (SC) 168.
(xiv) Saraladevi & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, Royal, 2014 LawSuit (SC) 698.
(xv) Kasim @ Pappu Vs. Kunwar Nath & Ors., 2014 LawSuit (Del) 2050.
8. The finding on the aforesaid issues is recorded hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs:
ISSUE NO. 11. Whether Sh. Anandi Chaudhary sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 24.11.2019 at about 01.45 pm, Near Jharera Village Bus Stop, Opposite Western Air Command, Gurugram to Dhaula Kaun Road, NH-8, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. SX4 car No. 11B108010M driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no.2? OPP.
9. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. 11B108010M. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined on record ASI Nand Kishore as PW2 who deposed that the investigation of the case was assigned to him and during the course of investigation, the site plan was prepared by him and the same has been proved as Ex. PW2/1. He further deposed that the offending vehicle along with original driving license of driver of the offending vehicle DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.6 of 23 and case diary issued by Army were seized by him. He further deposed that mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted and the postmortem on the body of deceased was also got conducted by him. He has also recorded the statement of witnesses, including eye witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That the driver of offending vehicle was arrested and released on police bail. He further deposed that after investigation of the present case, he has filed the DAR before the Tribunal and the same has been proved as Ex. PW2/2 (colly) and challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the concerned criminal court.
During his cross examination, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident. He has recorded the statement of eye witness Sh. Pappu under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he had received the DD entry with respect to MLC from RR Hospital at around 06.15 pm and the FIR was registered on the basis of DD entry only. He denied the suggestion that no accident took place due to involvement of alleged offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
10. As per the testimony of PW2/IO, he has concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. vehicle bearing No. 11B108010M and accordingly, the respondent no. 1 had been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC.
11. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgments in cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.7 of 23 decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that "......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
Ld. Counsel for petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
Ld. Counsel for petitioners has further relied upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Jamanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Rai & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 831/2015, decided on 19.11.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has taken the similar DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.8 of 23 view as taken in the aforesaid judgments that the charge-sheet is sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, especially when no evidence has been led on behalf of respondents.
12. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 wherein it has been observed that "......filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
13. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
14. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in case DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.9 of 23 titled Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to for the claimants and the claimants were required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
15. In view of foregoing reasons, it is held that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. 11B108010M and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(I) Loss of dependency
17. The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Fuliya Devi, wife of deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.10 of 23 affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased husband was working as labourer/helper at Delhi and was earning more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. She has further claimed that her deceased husband was earning for his livelihood for himself and for other family members who were solely dependent upon the earning of deceased for all purposes in life. She has proved on record copy of Aadhar cards of petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no. 8 as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/8.
During her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she has seven children, out of which only two daughters are unmarried and minors and all other children are major. She further deposed that her deceased husband was working as labour in Delhi and earning around Rs. 500/- per day. She further deposed that her deceased husband had educated upto 3 rd Class. She admitted that she has not filed any document regarding earning and educational qualification of her deceased husband.
18. From the perusal of testimony of PW1, it is clear that no document of earning and educational qualification of deceased has been proved on record by PW1 or any other witness. Hence, as the profession and educational qualifications of the deceased has not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled person is taken into account as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which was Rs. 14,842/- per month at the time of accident.
19. Further, PW1 has claimed in his affidavit that her deceased husband was aged about 56 years. In order to prove the same, PW1 has tendered on record copy of voter ID card of deceased as Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) in which the age of deceased as on 01.01.2005 is mentioned as 42 years. Going by this document, the age of deceased at the time of accident i.e. on DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.11 of 23 24.11.2019 was about 56 years, 10 months and 23 days.
Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '9' is applicable in the present case.
20. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, this claim petition has been filed by eight petitioners being widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. However, during evidence of petitioner as PW1 as well as in her examination in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.12.2017 in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003, she has deposed that only her two daughters, i.e. petitioner no. 7 and 8 are still unmarried and all four sons are earning, but not much. In view of aforesaid statements, only the petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 7 and 8 are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Further, even on the date of accident, i.e. 24.11.2019, the other petitioners, i.e. petitioner no. 2 to 6 were already major. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/3rd of earning of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are entitled to addition of 10% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was not having any permanent job DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.12 of 23 and was aged between 51 to 60 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case is calculated to be Rs. 11,75,486/- (rounded off) (Rs. 14,842/- X 12 X 2/3 X 9 X 110/100).
(II) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
22. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
23. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years have already elapsed since the deceased had expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 8 + 10% of 3,20,000 = 3,52,000/-)] under this head.
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.13 of 23
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
24. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,60,486/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Six only) (Rs. 11,75,486/- + 3,85,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
25. As already discussed above, only the petitioners no. 1, 7 and 8 are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Therefore, petitioners no.2 to 6 are only being awarded the amount of Rs.44,000/-, along with proportionate interest, granted under the head 'loss of consortium. Hence, out of the remaining awarded amount, along with proportionate interest, 70% share is being awarded to petitioner no. 1 and the remaining 15% share each is being awarded to petitioner no. 7 and 8.
RELEASE
26. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 40% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.14 of 23 order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of her residence and the remaining 60% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
The above amount of Rs.44,000/- with proportionate interest granted to petitioners no. 2 to 6 be released to them in their respective saving bank account opened/to opened near the place of their residence, through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode of transfer of money, which can be withdrawn by them through a withdrawal form.
The entire share of petitioner no. 7 is directed to be released in her saving bank account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode.
The entire share of petitioner no. 8 is directed to be kept in FDR for a period till she attains the age of majority. The amount of FDR on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of her residence.
27. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
28. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.15 of 23
29. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
30. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
31. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
32. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
33. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
34. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
35. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.16 of 23 with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
36. Both the respondents are being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
37. R-1 and R-2 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
38. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
39. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
40. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.17 of 23
1. Date of the accident 24.11.2019
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the NA
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim NA
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 17.01.2020
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the No
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Insurance NA
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company submitted his NA
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance NA
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) NA
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.18 of 23
of the offer of the Insurance
Company.
14. Date of the award 28.11.2022
15. Whether the claimant(s) were
directed to open savings bank Yes
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s)
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 17.01.2020
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(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place Yet to furnish
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Village Keshopatti, Claimant(s) Post Office Mukhtapur, Ward No. 12, PS Kalyanpur, District Samastipur, Bihar-
848102.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yet to furnish residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Yes award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.19 of 23
41. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 04.01.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 28.11.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.20 of 23 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 24.11.2019
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Anandi Chaudhary
3. Age of the deceased : 56 years, 10 months and 23 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Minimum wages for unskilled worker in Delhi.
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 14,842/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Fuliya Devi 51 years Wife
(ii) Sh. Aravind 36 years Son
Chaudhary
(iii) Sh. Pavan 32 years Son
Chadhary
(iv) Babita 31 years Daughter
(v) Rajan Sahni 30 years Son
(vi) Rajesh Kumar 27 years Son
(vii) Saraswati Kumari 19 years Daughter
(viii) Durga Kumari 17 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased Rs.14,842/-
(A)
8 Add-Future Prospects Rs.1,484.2/-
(B)
9 Less-Personal Rs.5,442.06/-
expenses of the
deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.10,884.14/-
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.21 of 23
11 Annual loss of Rs.1,30,609.68/-
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 9
13 Total loss of Rs.11,75,486/-
dependency (D x 12
x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses Nil
(G)
15 Compensation for Nil
loss of love and
affection (H)
16 Compensation for Rs.3,52,000/-
loss of consortium
(I)
17 Compensation for Rs.16,500.00
loss of estate (J)
18 Compensation Rs.16,500.00
towards funeral
expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.15,60,486/-
COMPENSATION
(F + G + H + I + J+K
=L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED DAR till deposit in 30 days and
9% thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to Rs.3,35,397.61/-
the date of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs. 18,95,883.60/- (rounded off
interest (L+M) to Rs. 18,96,000/-)
23 Award amount released P-1 = 60% share
P-2 = Entire share
P-3 = Entire share
P-4 = Entire share
P-5 = Entire share
P-6 = Entire share
P-7 = Entire share
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.22 of 23
P-8 = Nil
24 Award amount kept in P-1 = 40% share
FDRs/ MACAD P-2 = Nil
P-3 = Nil
P-4 = Nil
P-5 = Nil
P-6 = Nil
P-7 = Nil
P-8 = Entire share
25 Mode of disbursement Through bank
of the award amount to
claimant(s)
26 Next date for 04.01.2023
compliance of the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
28.11.2022
DAR No. 38/2020 Page no.23 of 23