Delhi District Court
Pooja vs Ram Kishan Pal on 19 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
POOJA & ORS. VS. RAM KISHAN PAL & ORS.
MACP No. 43/17
1. Smt. Pooja (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Deepak Kumar
2. Ms. Anuradha (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Deepak Kumar
3. Harsh Kumar (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Deepak Kumar
Through his mother/natural guardian
Smt. Pooja
4. Smt. Rajwanti (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Rajender
All R/o WZ-99, Harijan Basti,
Near Nasirpur Road,
Palam Village, New Delhi-110045.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Kishan Pal (Driver)
S/o Sh. Roop Naryan Pal,
Permanent R/o Village Kotpurva,
PS Tadiyama, District Hardoi, U.P.
Presently at :-
R/o B-172, Bhagat Singh Colony,
Ballabgarh, Haryana.
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Nirottam Singh,
R/o B/NCF-172, Sector-22,
Bhagat Singh Colony,
Ballabgarh, Haryana.
MACP No. 43/17
Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 1 of 32
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
IFFCO Sadan, C1 District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017. .........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 03.12.2016
Date of filing of claim petition : 16.02.2017
Date of framing of issues : 16.02.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 28.02.2025
Date of decision : 19.03.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Deepak Kumar in a motor accident that took place on 16.06.2016, at about 00:30 hrs, towards Bhikaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue Road, Near Sector-2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.317/16, under Sections 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS R.K. Puram. The vehicle involved in this case is a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-8958, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) Sh. Ram Kishan Pal, owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) Sh. Pradeep Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Case of the petitioners is that in the intervening night of 15/16.06.2016, the deceased was performing his picket duty from 10 to 5 AM at Africa Avenue Road, Near Sector-2, Bus Stop, on the road coming from Munrika side along with another Constable Jai Narain and they both were checking the vehicles by putting barricades. At about 12:40 am, the deceased had pointed out white colour taxi/Eeco car bearing registration No. MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 2 of 32 DL-1RT-2041 and the driver of said taxi was trying to park it on the left side by slowing down. When the deceased was going towards the said taxi, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-69-8958, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased due to which he struck against the Eeco car and fell down on the road. Thereafter, the said truck also hit the Eeco car. Due to forceful impact, the said Eeco car turned turtle after rotating fully and passengers sitting in the said car also got injured and fell down on the road. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to JPNA Trauma Centre where he was declared brought dead by the doctors.
3. Respondent no.1 filed his written statement wherein it is submitted that he was not driving the offending vehicle. Sh. Rahul, shown as helper of the offending vehicle and who was also arrested by the police, was sitting on the steering wheel of the offending vehicle. Case of R-1 is that he was not present on the spot on the day of accident.
4. Respondent no. 2 filed his written statement wherein it is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was having a valid permit, insurance and pollution certificate. It is further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 w.e.f. 19.01.2016 to 18.01.2017 and hence, he was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
5. In its reply, respondent no. 3/Insurance Company submitted that the respondent no. 1 and his helper were under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and the said fact is MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 3 of 32 substantiated from the recovery memo showing that the liquor bottle and two plastic glasses were recovered from the cabin of the truck. It is further submitted that the weight of goods in the offending vehicle was found to be in excess of the permissible weight.
6. It is pertinent to mention that vide Order dated 16.02.2017, four connected DARs bearing Nos. D-684/16, 685/16, 686/16 and 687/16 arising out of the same accident were consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision and DAR No. 685/16 was directed to be treated as lead case for recording of evidence. On the same day, the following consolidated issues were framed by this tribunal as:-
1. Whether Sh. K. Sura (injured in the MACP No. 684/16), sustained injuries, Sh. Santosh Kumar Baro (deceased in MACP No. 685/16) sustained fatal injuries, Sh. Easther Pongen (injured in MACP No. 686/16) sustained injuries and Sh. Deepak (deceased in MACP No. 687/16) sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.06.2016 at about 00:30, towards Bhikaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue Road, Near Sector-2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-69-8958 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. Thereafter, one connected claim petition bearing MACP No. 43/17 qua the deceased Sh. Deepak Kumar was filed on 16.02.2017 and the DAR bearing No. D-687/17 was directed MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 4 of 32 to be clubbed with the connected claim petition for further proceedings.
8. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1/wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon certain documents. Copy of her Aadhaar card is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). Copy of her PAN card is Ex.
PW1/2 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no. 2 is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no. 3 is Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). Copy of voter ID card of petitioner no. 4 is Ex. PW1/5 (OSR). Copy of performance profile of petitioner no. 2 is Ex. PW1/6 (OSR). Copy of ID card of petitioner no. 3 is Ex. PW1/7 (OSR). Copy of performance profile of petitioner no. 3 is Ex. PW1/8 (OSR). Copy of ID card of deceased is Mark A, pay slip of deceased is Ex. PW1/10, newspaper cutting is Mark B. Documents filed along with the DAR by the IO is Ex. PW1/12 (colly). Copy of caste certificate is Ex. PW1/13 (OSR). Copy of PAN card of petitioner no. 4 is Ex. PW1/14 (OSR).
9. The petitioners have examined ASI Raj Kumar from HACR Branch, South District, New Delhi as PW2 who has placed on record copies of Character Roll Register and various other records are Ex. PW2/1 (colly), last pay fixation entry at page no. 6 of Ex. PW2/1 (colly) and copy of pay fixation order as Mark A (colly).
10. The petitioners have examined Constable Jai Narain, an eye witness of the accident, as PW5. His affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW5/A.
11. The petitioners have also examined HC Rambir from Account Branch, DCP office, Hauz Khas, South District, New MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 5 of 32 Delhi as PW6 who has placed on record the last pay certificate, the record received from 3rd battalion, salary record w.e.f 01.03.2015 till 16.06.2016 and the salary record of financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 in respect of deceased as Ex. PW6/A (colly).
12. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Deepanshu Payal, Constable from Account Branch, DCP Office, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as PW7 who has placed on record attested copies of orders with regard to issue of bonus to Delhi Police Personnel as Ex. PW7/A (colly), attested copy of office order for compensatory pay to Delhi Police Personnel (non gazetted personnel) as Ex. PW7/B (colly), attested copy of annual statement of salary in respect of Constable Deepak as Ex. PW7/C (colly).
13. Respondent no. 2 examined Sh. Subhash Singh, T.S.I from the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad as R2W1 who has placed on record and proved the attested copy of RC details as Ex. R2W1/A, copy of gazette notification dated 06.08.2018 along with memo bearing No. 47304 dated 27.08.2018 issued by Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh as Ex. R2W1/B and Ex. R2W1/C respectively (colly) and copy of endorsement to increase the gross laden of the said truck as Ex. R2W1/D (OSR).
14. Respondent no. 2 also examined Sh. Narender Kumar, Transport Inspector from the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nuh as R2W2 who proved Form No. 24 (Motor Vehicle Register) as Ex. R2W2/A, copy of fitness certificate of the offending truck as Ex. R2W2/A as well as copy MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 6 of 32 of Order dated 23.01.2023 vide which fitness records pertaining to the year 2016 was destroyed, as Ex. R2W2/C.
15. Respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Pankaj Bharti, Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, Ld ASJ-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi as R3W1.
16. Respondent no. 3 also examined SI Kailash Chand, the Investigating Officer of the case, as R3W2. He had filed the chargesheet {Ex. R3W2/1 (colly)}.
17. Respondent no. 3 also examined one Sh. Siddhant Jaiswal, Assistant Manager (Legal) from their Company as R3W3 who proved copy of his ID card as Ex. R3W3/1 and true copy of insurance policy along with terms and conditions as Ex. R3W3/2 (colly).
18. The Tribunal heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Sh. Arun Yadav, Ld. Counsel for petitioners, Sh. Suresh Sisodia and Ms. Richa Sharma, Ld. Counsels for R-1, Sh. Sunil Kumar Bhatt and Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. Counsels for R-2 and Mohd. Raghib, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company and has carefully perused the entire case record along with written submissions and case laws filed on behalf of parties. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
19. ISSUE NO. 11. Whether Sh. K. Sura (injured in the MACP No. 684/16), sustained injuries, Sh. Santosh Kumar Baro (deceased in MACP No. 685/16) sustained fatal injuries, Sh. Easther Pongen (injured in MACP No. 686/16) sustained injuries and Sh. Deepak (deceased in MACP MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 7 of 32 No. 687/16) sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.06.2016 at about 00:30, towards Bhikaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue Road, Near Sector-2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-69-8958 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
20. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident in question was caused by the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-69-8958. In order to prove the same, the petitioners examined on record Constable Jai Narain, an eye witness of the accident, as PW5 who deposed in his affidavit in evidence (Ex. PW5/A) regarding the manner of accident as follows :-
"2. That the deponent along with deceased was performing his picket duty in the intervening night of 15/16.06.2016 from 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. at Africa Avenue Road, Near Sector-2, Bus Stop, on the road coming from Munrika side and both of them were checking the vehicles by putting barricade and at about 12:40 A.M. the deceased Ct. Deepak Kumar waived his hand to stop a white colour Taxi EECO car bearing No. DL-1RT-2041 and the driver of the said taxi was trying to park it on the left side by slowing down and the deceased was going towards the said taxi and in the meantime offending vehicle/truck bearing No. HR-69-8958 being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent mannner and zig-zag way, firstly hit a Wagon-R car bearing No. HR-55V-9761 on its left side which was coming from the same side and thereafter hit the police barricade on right side and thereafter hit the police MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 8 of 32 barricade on right side and thereafter hit the third barricade which was on the left side of the road and thereafter hit the deceased due to which he struck with the back of EECO car and fell down on the road and thereafter the said truck hit the EECO car No. DL-1RT-2041. The hit of the truck on the said EECO car was so forceful that the said EECO car turned turtle after rotating fully and the passengers sitting in the said car also got injured and fell down on the road. The deponent tried to stop the truck by running and on seeing him, the driver/respondent no. 1 sped away from the spot. The deponent removed the deceased to hospital by the accidental Wagon-R car. The injured of EECO car were sent to hospital by auto and he informed about the accident to Control Room and due to flashing of message the offending truck was caught near CNG Pump, Sector-12, Ring Road. Helper Rahul was nabbed by the public from the offending truck and who appeared to be under the influence of liquor and he told that respondent No. 1 has left the truck after the accident. The deceased was removed to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, where the doctors declared him brought dead."
21. In his cross examination by R-2, PW5 deposed as follows :-
"On the day of incident, apart from me and the deceased Ct. Deepak, no other police personnel was with us at the picket. On the day and time of accident, I was having a personal mobile (No. 8447792108) besides wireless set. Before hitting against the deceased Deepak, the offending truck had also hit against the police barricade. The right side barricade got turned towards other directions but the left side last barricade was crushed under the truck. (Vol. There were total three barricades, that is one on MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 9 of 32 the right side and the other two were on the left side of the road from the direction in which the truck was proceeding and the truck did not hit against the first barricade which was on the left side). I was standing at the end side of the above barricades, that is after the barricade which was crushed by the truck and I had seen the truck hitting against the barricades from the front side.
I did not alert Deepak at the time when the truck hit against the first barricade i.e. second barricade on the right side. (Vol. There was a loud noise of vehicles on the road at that time). Before the offending truck hit the first barricade, number of vehicles had already passed in the said barricade, however, I did not note down the number of the passing vehicles. The site plan was prepared at my instance. There was a distance of around three meters between each barricade. The speed of the offending truck was above 70 KMPH when it hit against the right side barricade. The Maruti Eeco Van had stopped at a distance around 20-25 steps after crossing the third barricade of the left side. As Ct. Deepak was standing with me after the third barricade, after giving indication to the aforesaid Maruti Eeco Van, Ct. Deepak started walking towards the said van. It is wrong to suggest that since my attention was towards Deepak at that time, I was not in a position to see the offending truck hitting against the barricades or against the other vehicles and Deepak or to note the speed of the truck.
I immediately informed the control room of my PS about the above incident from my mobile phone. The speed of the truck was not reduced at the time when it hit against Deepak. (Vol. Even after hitting Deepak when the truck hit against Maruti Eeco Van, the van turned at 180 degree due to the impact of hitting at great speed). I had noted the number of MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 10 of 32 the truck from its back side number plate when it had crossed the Eeco after hitting against it in the last. (Vol. Even the driver of the truck had seen backwards from the driving side window and I signaled him to stop but he did not stop the truck). I did not tell the number of truck to control room of my PS during the above talk. It is wrong to suggest that since I was not in a position to note down the number of truck, this is reason, why I did not inform the number to the control room. I did not fire at the tyre of the offending truck with the official weapon which I was having at that time. I made total two calls about the accident from spot and the second call was made by me to the Inspector investigation of our case. I am not aware whether one DD or two DDs were registered on the basis of my calls.
It is correct that there was khanna Stadium located near the spot of accident. The distance between the gate of Khanna Stadium and barricades should be around 60-70 meteres. (Vol. However, the boundary wall of the stadium was running parellel to the place where the barricades were put). It is wrong to suggest that the distance between the place where the Eeco van was hit and the barricades was around 60-70 meters and not 20-25 meters..."
22. The contention of Ld. Counsel for R-2 is that even though, the offending truck was involved in a later accident with a Polo car near the same place as the spot of accident as the accident in the present case, the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present accident case. It has also been argued during the course of final arguments that in his cross examination, PW5 has stated that he had immediately informed the control room of his police station when the accident in MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 11 of 32 question took place. It is submitted that immediately would mean 12:56 am as per the GD entry No. 007A dated 16.06.2016 at 00:56 hrs, PS R.K. Puram. As per R-2, prior to this GD, another GD No. 005A dated 16.06.2016 at 00:46 hrs had already been recorded and it pertained to Polo car which had actually met with an accident with the offending vehicle. It is submitted that it shows that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present accident lateron.
23. The accident with Polo car is not the subject matter of the present DAR. The testimony of PW5 and DAR would show that the manner in which the accident took place is disturbing and shocking. Such a circumstance might have understandably created much chaos at the spot. As per the FIR, the accident in question had taken place at 00:30 hrs on 16.06.2016. The FIR further shows that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and after hitting the Eeco car and fataly injuring Constable Deepak, the offending truck hit another vehicle (Polo car) near CNG Pump, Sector-12. The offending vehicle was found at the spot of second accident along with the driver who had been apprehended by the public. Further, GD No. 007A mentions that this entry was made when wireless operator came to the DO room and presented one QST PCR call. It means that the call related to the accident in question had been made prior to 00:56 hrs. There is, thus, no material discrepancy in testimony of PW5 related to the time when the accident took place and the call was made.
24. The FIR which is part of DAR, mentions that at first, MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 12 of 32 the offending vehicle hit a Wagon R car bearing registration No. HR-55V-9761. Thereafter, it hit the barricade on the right side followed by the barricade on the left side. He then hit Constable Deepak who was approaching the Eeco car for checking. The offending truck then also hit the Eeco car. Later the offending truck also hit a Polo car near CNG Pump Sector-12, Ring Road. R-1/driver was apprehended from there. He appeared to be drunk.
25. Further, the DAR filed along with chargesheet corroborates the case of petitioners.
26. Reliance is being placed 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."
27. It has also been contended by Ld. Counsel for R-2 that the helper who was sitting with R1 in the offending truck did not support the case of prosecution during the trial in criminal case even though in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he had supported the case. This contention has no merit so far as present claim petition is concerned.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 13 of 32 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.
29. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
30. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to deny his involvement in the accident or to deny negligence on his part, which he failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent no. 1 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.
31. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-69-8958 and the said vehicle at that MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 14 of 32 time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2, insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
32. ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
33. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioner have become entitled to be 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
34. The petitioner No. 1 being wife of the deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she has claimed that her deceased husband was working as Constable with Delhi Police. He was posted at PS R.K. Puram and was getting salary of Rs.38,571/- per month.
35. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined ASI Raj Kumar from HACR Branch, South District, New Delhi as PW2 who has placed on record copies of Character Roll Register and various other records are Ex. PW2/1 (colly), last pay fixation entry at page no. 6 of Ex. PW2/1 (colly) and MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 15 of 32 copy of pay fixation order as Mark A (colly).
36. The petitioners have also examined HC Rambir from Account Branch, DCP office, Hauz Khas, South District, New Delhi as PW6 who has placed on record last pay certificate, record received from 3rd battalion, salary record w.e.f 01.03.2015 till 16.06.2016, salary record of financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 in respect of deceased as Ex. PW6/A (colly).
37. PW6 during examination in chief has deposed that the seventh pay commission was applicable from 01.01.2016 and the gross pay of Rs.44,218/- per month as reflected at serial no. 8 on page no. 4 and the same is at point F on the said page. He further deposed that the pay of Rs.44,218/- was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
38. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Deepanshu Payal, Constable from Account Branch, DCP Office, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as PW7 who has placed on record attested copies of orders with regard to issue of bonus to Delhi Police Personnel as Ex. PW7/A (colly), attested copy of office order for compensatory pay to Delhi Police Personnel (non gazetted personnel) as Ex. PW7/B (colly), attested copy of annual statement of salary in respect of Constable Deepak as Ex. PW7/C (colly).
39. Perusal of last pay certificate, record received from 3rd battalion, salary record w.e.f 01.03.2015 till 16.06.2016, salary record of financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 in respect of deceased as Ex. PW6/A (colly) reveal that the deceased was working on the post of Constable (Ex) with Delhi Police and was getting Rs.44,218/- per month after MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 16 of 32 implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission. The deceased was also getting extra pay to the tune of Rs.33,966/- annually which comes out to be Rs.2,830/- per month (Rs.33,966/12). However, the office memorandum dated 19.09.2017 issued by the Govt. of India regarding grant of non productivity linked bonus is applicable to only those employees who were in service as on 31.03.2017 and have rendered atleast six months of continuous service during the year 2016-17, but in the present matter, the deceased died in the month of June, 2016 and did not render six months of continuous service during the year 2016-17. Hence, the said office memorandum is not applicable to the deceased. Accordingly, the income of deceased is taken as Rs.47,048/- (Rs.44,218/- + Rs.2,830/-) and the annual income comes out to be Rs.5,64,576/- (Rs.47,048/- X 12).
40. In view of the settled law on subject, the tax liability of the deceased, if any, is to be reduced from his above annual earnings as his 'income' means the actual income less the tax paid, as was also approved in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. After giving the benefits, an amount of Rs. 11,802/- is required to be reduced towards income tax from earnings of the deceased. The net annual earnings of the deceased thus come to Rs. 5,52,774/- (Rs.5,64,576/- - Rs. 11,802/-) and the monthly income comes out to be Rs.46,065/- (rounded off) per month.
41. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has tendered on record copy of employment ID card of deceased as Mark A in which the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 21.11.1977. Further, in the last pay certificate of deceased Ex.
MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 17 of 32PW6/A, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 21.11.1977. Hence, going by these documents, the age of deceased as on the date of accident i.e. on 16.06.2016 was 38 years, 6 months and 26 days. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '15' is applicable in the present case.
42. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by four petitioners i.e. wife, children and mother of deceased. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
43. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 50% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was having permanent job and below the age of 40 years at the time of accident. Thus, the loss of dependency in the petitioners case comes to Rs.93,28,163/- {(Rs.46,065/-X 12 X 15 X 3/4 X 150/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
44. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 18 of 32 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'.
45. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners 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' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,29,900/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
46. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.95,58,063/- (Rupees Ninety Five MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 19 of 32 Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Sixty Three only) (Rs.93,28,163/- + Rs.2,29,900/-) 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
47. Out of the awarded amount, 70% share is being awarded to petitioner no. 1 i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2 to 4, i.e. children and mother of deceased.
RELEASE
48. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% 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 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 200 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 26.02.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 20 of 32 withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
49. Out of amount awarded to petitioners no. 2 and 3 each, 90% 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 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 26.02.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
50. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 4, 90% 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 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 21 of 32 be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 26.02.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner (s) near the place of their residence.
55. 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.
56. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 22 of 3257. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner (s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the petitioner (s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner
(s) from any other branch of the bank.
58. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner (s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and petitioner (s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
59. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner (s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
60. The Insurance Company in their written submissions have taken defence that the respondent no. 1 was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident which is evident from the recovery memo whereby the liquor bottle and two plastic glasses were recovered from the cabin of the truck after it had been seized immediately after a series of alleged accidents.
61. They have taken another defence in their written submissions that the offending vehicle was found to have a gross weight of 26,965 kgs against its authorized laden weight of MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 23 of 32 25,000 kgs and the unladen weight of offending vehicle was 10025 kgs against the authorized unladen weight of 8600 kgs, which is clear violation of permit as well as breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
62. In order to prove its defence, the Insurance Company examined Sh. Pankaj Bharti, Ahlmad from the Court of Ld. ASJ-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi who has seen the copy of chargesheet, list of enclosures, seizure memos of seized articles, notice under Section 133 MV Act bearing the reply of owner of the vehicle, list of witnesses, copy of GR issued by Mehak Road Line, weight bridge receipt issued by Jai Baba Mohan Ram Ki Dharam Kanta, seizure memo of driving license and other documents in relation to truck bearing no. HR-69-8958 along with copy of driving license in the name of Rahul Kumar, copy of insurance policy, copy of national permit/authorization, MLC of Rahul Kumar bearing No. 129300 along his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. available on record and the same are correct copies of the record.
63. The Insurance Company has examined SI Kailash Chand as R3W2 who is Investigating Officer of the present case. He has filed the chargesheet as Ex. R3W2/1 (colly). He deposed that during investigation, he had got the weightment of the truck along with the goods and the same was found to be in excess of the permissible limit mentioned in the RC, i.e. 25000 kgs (25 tons) whereas the actual weight found was 26965 kgs (26.965 tons). He further deposed that the unladen weight of said vehicle as mentioned in the RC was 8600 kgs whereas the actual laden weight was also found to be in excess, i.e. 10025 kgs. He further MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 24 of 32 deposed that during investigation and inspection of truck cabin after the accident, he recovered one half filled bottle of liquor (375 ml) as well as two used disposable plastic glasses and the same were sent for forensic examination to FSL Rohini.
64. They have also examined Sh. Siddhant Jaiswal, Assistant Manager (Legal) from their Company as R3W3 who has placed on record true copy of policy along with terms and conditions as Ex. R3W3/2 (colly). He deposed that the offending truck bearing No. HR-69-8958 was insured with gross permissible weight of 25000 kgs, however, at the time of accident, the said truck was overloaded with gross weight of 26965 kgs which is evident from the documents filed as part of DAR. He further deposed that the driver of said truck was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as there is clear violation of permit conditions as well as breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
65. In support of his defence, R-2 summoned Sh. Subhash Singh TSI from the office of Secretary Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Faridabad as R2W1 who deposed that the truck bearing registration No. HR-74A-3766 was a three axle truck and was registered with the Authority of gross laden weight of 28,000 kg and with unladen weight of 9000 kg. He proved the RC details as Ex. R2W1/A. He also produced the Gazette Notification dated 06.08.2018 along with Memo dated 27.08.2018 issued by Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh, Haryana (Ex. R2W1/B and Ex. R2W1/C). Copy of endorsement of increasing the gross laden of the said truck is Ex. R2W1/D MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 25 of 32 (OSR).
66. The testimony of R2W1 does not help R-2 as at the time of accident, the Gazette Notification Ex. R2W1/B to Ex. R2W1/C were not in force. He also admitted that on the date of accident, the aforesaid truck was registered with the gross laden weight of 25,000 kg and unladen weight of 8600 kg. Most importantly, this witness has produced evidence in respect of a truck bearing registration No. HR-74A-3766, which is not the offending vehicle.
67. The contention of Ld. Counsel for R-2 is that the accident in question did not take place on account of overloading. The Tribunal, however, is convinced that the manner in which the accident took place because of rash, negligent and uncontrolled driving of the offending vehicle by R-1 shows that the truck being of excess laden and unladen weight on account of manipulation in its body and excess weight of goods in it contributed to causing of accident.
68. R-2 also examined Sh. Narender Kumar, Transport Inspector from the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nuh as R2W2. He deposed that the fitness certificate of the truck bearing registration No. HR-69-8958 was renewed from 30.08.2016 to 29.08.2017. The renewal of fitness was got after more than two months of the accident. This witness could not produce the fitness record pertaining to the year 2016 as the same had been destroyed. R-2 also did not produce fitness certificate for the period when the accident had taken place.
69. R3W2 SI Kailash Chand deposed that during his investigation and inspection of truck cabin after the accident, one MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 26 of 32 half filled bottle of liquor (375 ml) as well as two used disposable plastic glasses were recovered and the same were sent for forensice examination to FSL. Admittedly, the blood sample of R-1 was not sent for analysis. Besides, presence of half filled liquor bottle with two glasses does not lead to the conclusion that the driver/R-1 had also consumed liquor or that he had consumed liquor during the driving and before the accident which would have affected his faculties.
70. In view of above discussion where the unladen and laden weight of the offending vehicle was in excess of permissible limit, the Tribunal is convinced that it is the fit case for grant of recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the registered owner.
71. Accordingly, respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is first 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. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
72. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 27 of 32 their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
73. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
74. 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.
75. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 16.06.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 03.12.2016
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
MACP No. 43/17
Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 28 of 32
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner Legal offer not filed
(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 19.03.2025
15. Whether the petitioner (s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner 26.02.2018
(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner
(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner (s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 29 of 32
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner (s)
19. Whether the petitioner (s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner (s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
76. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 04.07.2025.
Digitally signedVRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.03.19 16:13:49 +0530 Announced in the open court. (Vrinda Kumari) on 19.03.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 30 of 32 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 16.06.2016
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Deepak Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 38 years, 6 months and 26 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Govt. Job
5. Income of the deceased Rs.46,065/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Smt. Pooja 43 years Wife
ii) Anuradha 23 years Daughter
iii) Harsh Kumar 22 years Son
iv) Rajwanti 60 years Mother
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 46,065/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 23,032.5/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 17,274.37/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 51,823.13/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 6,21,877.56/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 15
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.93,28,163/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 31 of 32 and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.95,58,063/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of DAR till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 59,45,912/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.1,55,03,975/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 1,55,04,000/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=10% share
P-4=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share P-3=90% share P-4=90% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 04.07.2025 award Digitally signed VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.03.19 16:13:56 +0530 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 19.03.2025 MACP No. 43/17 Pooja & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Pal & Ors. 19.03.2025 Page 32 of 32