Delhi District Court
Rinki Kumari vs Ram Vinod Yadav on 7 February, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No:76633/2016
FIR No.778/14
PS Nihal Vihar
1. Rinki Kumari
(Wife of deceased Asit Kumar)
2. Yash Gaurav (Minor)
(Son of the deceased)
3. Smt.Rita Singh
W/o Indu Kumar Singh
(Mother of the deceased)
4. Indu Kumar Singh
S/o Ramashish Singh
(Father of the deceased)
All r/o H.No. K78, Nihal Vihar,
Delhi
Permanent r/o: Village Naya Tola Madhopur,
PS Bakhtawarpur, Patna, Bihar
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ram Vinod Yadav
S/o Ram Dular Yadav
r/o Village & PO Bari Khas,
PS Nizamabad, Distt.Azamgarh,
U.P.
(Driver)
2. Swaroop Singh
S/o Balkar Singh
R/o Shop No.1, Punjabi Bagh Extn.,
New Delhi
(Registered Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
At: ROII, 12/1, Jeewan Raksha Building,
Asaf Ali Road,
2
New Delhi
(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.02.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 30.01.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 07.02.2020
AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for death of Asit Kumar in a road vehicular accident that took place on 05.12.2014. FIR No.778/14 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar and chargesheet was filed against respondent No.1/driver of Canter bearing registration No.RJ07G5227 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and chargesheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition as well DAR are that at about 10:30 PM on 05.12.2014, deceased Asit Kumar was going to his house on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR26BJ8139. When he reached 50 feet road, near Rajendra Public School, Nihal Vihar, suddenly the offending canter came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Resultantly, deceased Asit Kumar fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries on 10.12.2014.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1/Ram Vinod Yadav which was owned by respondent No.2/Swaroop Singh and insured with respondent No.3/The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
5. In the joint Written Statements filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner, it was averred that the alleged accident took place due to sole 3 negligence of the deceased as he was trying to overtake the alleged offending tanker/canter from left side. In that process, he struck against a stone which was lying on the road. Due to this reason, he lost his balance and head of the deceased had struck against the front bumper of the Canter. Simultaneously, it was also claimed that the deceased was coming from the wrong side and he tried to overtake the alleged offending vehicle and head of the deceased hit against the tanker.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, it was claimed that the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous goods (oil) at the time of accident and there was no endorsement on the driving licence of respondent No.1/driver in this respect. It was further claimed that the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit/fitness at the time of accident. It was, however, admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide its Policy bearing No.31170131130100008584 valid from 18.03.2014 to 17.03.2015.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2015:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the deceased Asit Kumar suffered fatal injuries on 05.12.2014 at about 10:30 pm at 50 foota road, near Rajender public School, Nihal Vihar, Delhi in a vehicular accident involving a Tanker bearing registration No.RJ07G5227, owned by respondent No.2 Swaroop Singh and insured with respondent No.3 The New India Assurance Company Limited, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1 Ram Vinod Yadav, who was driving the vehicle? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
9. My findings on various issues are as under:
4Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Asit Kumar suffered fatal injuries on 05.12.2014 at about 10:30 pm at 50 foota road, near Rajender public School, Nihal Vihar, Delhi in a vehicular accident involving a Tanker bearing registration No.RJ07G5227, owned by respondent No.2 Swaroop Singh and insured with respondent No.3 The New India Assurance Company Limited, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1 Ram Vinod Yadav, who was driving the vehicle? OPP
10. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.2 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. To prove that the accident in question was caused due to negligent driving of respondent No.1, petitioners examined HC Narender as PW3.
12. PW3/HC Narender testified that on 05.12.2014, he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar and was on patrolling duty. He further stated that at about 10:20 PM, he saw a tanker bearing registration No.RJ07G5227 hit a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR26BJ8139 from side and the motorcyclist fell on the road. He further stated that public had gathered there and the driver of the offending tanker ran away from the spot. He also stated that the tanker was removed to road side.
13. In his crossexamination by the insurance company, PW3/HC Narender denied that the offending vehicle was not being driven in rash and negligent manner or that the accident took place due to negligence of deceased. He categorically testified that the offending vehicle was seized in his presence. Nothing could be elicited from his crossexamination which could disprove his version.
14. The testimony of PW3/HC Narender also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as he was not crossexamined by respondent No.1/driver to disprove his version. Moreover, neither respondent No.1/driver nor respondent No.2/owner stepped into the witness box to prove that the accident was not caused due to negligence of respondent No.1.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is accordingly held that respondent No.1/Ram Vinod Yadav was negligent while driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Issue No.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the petitioners and 5 against the respondents.
16. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
17. In SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121 , which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.6
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
18. It was claimed by the petitioners that deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. As per PAN Card (Ex.PW1/2) and secondary school certificate (Ex.PW1/3) of the deceased Asit Kumar, his date of birth was 15.12.1980. Since the accident took place on 05.12.2014, the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident.
Income of the deceased
19. It was claimed by the petitioners that deceased Asit Kumar was working as Assistant Manager - Channel with DTDC Express Ltd. and drawing a salary of Rs.22,500/ per month. To substantiate their claim, petitioners examined Krishna Kumar, Sr.Executive/HR, DTDC Express Ltd. as PW2; Koshlender Singh, Assistant Manager/HRD, DTDC Express Ltd. as PW5 and Hirender Kumar, Executive (Legal), DTDC Express Ltd. as PW6.
20. PW6/Hirender Kumar proved on record Letter of Appointment of deceased and details of proposed salary to be paid to the deceased as Ex.PW6/B (colly). In his crossexamination by the insurance company, PW6 testified that deceased was appointed on Probation and after completion of Probation period, he was to become permanent, subject to his code and conduct. He also testified that a cheque was given to the deceased in lieu of the services rendered by him in the company. PW6/Hirender Kumar also placed on record photocopy of cheque dated 02.12.2015 amounting to Rs.3,825/ issued by DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. for payment of salary for 5 days to the deceased.
21. The bare perusal of salary details of deceased reflects that he was appointed on a gross monthly salary of Rs.22,500/. In the said circumstances, the income of 7 the deceased is assessed as Rs.22,500/ per month as on the date of accident. Number of Dependents
22. PW1/Rinki Kumari in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) deposed that her deceased husband had left behind four LRs/dependents including her, her minor son and parents of the deceased, who were aged about 60 years at the time of accident. The bare perusal of Aadhar Card (Ex.C8) of petitioner No.4/Indu Kumar Singh, father of deceased reflects that he was aged 59 years at the time of accident. Hence, he cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Thus, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e. wife, minor son and mother of the deceased are considered as dependent upon him as on the date of accident. Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
23. Applying the criteria laid down in the judgment of SARLA VERMA (SUPRA), deduction in the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/3rd (onethird) of his income. Selection of multiplier
24. As the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA CASE (SUPRA), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 16 (sixteen). Addition in the income towards future prospects
25. In view of the ratio of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), an addition of 50% of Rs.22,500 (Rs.11,250/ p.m.) is made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased. Thus, total monthly income of the deceased after making an addition of future prospects would be Rs.33,750/ per month. Loss of financial dependency
26. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be: Rs.22,500 + Rs.11,250 (50% of Rs.22500) = Rs.33,750/ Rs.33,750 x 1/3rd = Rs.11,250/ Rs.33,750 - Rs.11,250 = Rs.22,500/ Rs.22,500 x 12 (annual) = Rs.2,70,000/ Rs.2,70,000 x 16 (multiplier) = Rs.43,20,000/ Thus, total loss of dependence is assessed as Rs.43,20,000/ (Rupees Forty 8 Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
27. In the judgment PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively.
28. Accordingly, petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards Funeral Expenses; Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation towards Loss of Estate.
29. So far as compensation for Loss of Consortium is concerned, in view of the judgment titled as MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. NANU RAM reported as 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 decided by Hon'ble Ms.Justice Indu Malhotra, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased is awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) for Loss of Spousal Consortium;
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each towards Loss of Love and Affection and petitioner No.2 i.e. minor son of the deceased is awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) for Loss of Parental Consortium.
30. The total compensation is, thus, computed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 43,20,000
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000
3 Loss of Estate 15,000
4 Loss of Consortium 80,000
5 Loss of Love and Affection 2,00,000
TOTAL 46,30,000
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.46,30,000/ (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Thirty Thousand).
LIABILITY
31. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance 9 Company, however, the claim was resisted on the ground that there was a conscious breach of policy by the insured/owner as the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous goods at the time of accident and respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having any endorsement on his driving licence.
32. To substantiate its claim, insurance company/respondent No.3 examined Anilesh Chand Mishra, Accountant/RTO Office, Azamgarh, U.P. as R3W1.
33. R3W1/Anilesh Chand Mishra categorically testified that there was no endorsement on the driving licence (Ex.R3W1/1) for carrying oil and goods of hazardous nature. He further stated that as per the driving licence (Ex.R3W1/1), the driver/respondent No.1 could not drive any oil tanker or driver any vehicle carrying goods of hazarduous nature.
34. It was argued by learned counsel for respondent No.1/driver that respondent No.1 was competent to drive the offending vehicle/oil tanker as he had obtained a certificate from Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida that he was trained to drive such a vehicle. To rebut the claim of insurance company, respondent No.1/driver examined Ankit Tyagi, Instructor/Trainer, Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida, U.P. as R1W1. R1W1/Ankit Tyagi stated that the authorised training centre institute had issued a Certificate for Training Programme (Ex.R1W1/A) for transportation of hazardous goods in the name of Ram Vinod Yadav s/o Sh.Ram Dular Yadav. In his crossexamination by the insurance company, R1W1/Ankit Tyagi testified that neither they gave any information to the Licensing Authority nor the Licensing Authority contacted them regarding issuance of the Certificate (Ex.R1W1/A).
35. Admittedly, there was no endorsement on the driving licence of respondent No.1 that he was competent to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous substances. Thus, even if respondent No.1/Ram Vinod Yadav received any training from any institute for driving a vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods, the same is of no consequence.
36. In view of aforesaid discussion, the driving licence (Ex.R3W1/1) of respondent No.1 cannot be accepted as a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which was a tanker carrying oil. As there was a breach of policy, the insurance company is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners and then recover 10 the same from respondent No.2/registered owner/insured by filing an execution petition in this very Award without having recourse to an independent civil proceedings.
RELIEF
37. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.46,30,000/ (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Thirty Thousand) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 23.02.2015 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
38. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the petitioners immediately along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs.
Apportionment
39. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under: SN Name Relationship with Share in the award deceased amount 1 Rinki Kumari Wife 40% 2 Yash Gaurav Minor Son 30% 3 Smt.Rita Singh Mother 15% 4 Indu Kumar Singh Father 15% MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
40. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/ Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
41. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT SBI Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance 11 Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
42. In accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mr.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager/SBI, has been appointed as Nodal Officer in accordance with the abovesaid order having phone No.02222741336/9414048606 and email id:
[email protected]. In case of any assistance or noncompliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by email to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the email.
43. Out of total award amount of Rs.46,30,000/, a sum of Rs.4,30,000/ (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty Thousand), be released to petitioners immediately as per shares mentioned above in their savings bank accounts in nationalised bank(s).
44. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.42,00,000/ (Rupees Forty Two Lakh) would be kept in FDRs in accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003 as per details mentioned herein:
"(i) An Amount of Rs.16,80,000/ (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eighty Thousand) be kept in 120 (one hundred twenty) fixed deposits of Rs.14,000/ (Rupees Fourteen Thousand) each, in the name of 12 petitioner No.1/Rinki Kumari (wife), for the period of one month to 120 months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(ii) An Amount of Rs.12,60,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty Thousand) be kept in one fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No.2/Yash Gaurav (minor son) with cumulative interest till the period of his attaining the age of majority. However, petitioner No.1/mother of minor petitioner No.2 shall be at liberty to withdraw the quarterly interest.
(iii) An Amount of Rs.6,30,000/ (Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Thousand) be kept in 50 (fifty) fixed deposits of Rs.12,600/ (Rupees Twelve Thousand Six Hundred) each, in the name of petitioner No.3/Smt.Rita Singh (mother), for the period of one month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(iv) An Amount of Rs.6,30,000/ (Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Thousand) be kept in 50 (fifty) fixed deposits of Rs.12,600/ (Rupees Twelve Thousand Six Hundred) each, in the name of petitioner No.4/Indu Kumar @ Indu Kumar Singh (father), for the period of one month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest.
However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
45. Petitioners are directed to submit Form 15G to the insurance company in case they are eligible for exemption of deduction of TDS.
46. The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank 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 claimant(s).13
(c) 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.
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) 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 freeze the debit card(s) of 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.
(g) 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.
(h) 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 claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
47. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
48. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
49. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 20.03.2020.
50. Forms IV and V in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) are annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
File be consigned to Record Room.
14 Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date:
2020.02.07
Announced in the open Court 16:27:42 +0530
on 7th February, 2020
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 15 FORM IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 05.12.2014
2. Name of the deceased Asit Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 33 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Pvt.Job
5. Income of the deceased Rs.22,500/ per month
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
SN Name Age/DOB Relation
1 Rinki Kumari 11.10.1982 Wife
2 Yash Gaurav 09.09.2009 Minor Son
3 Smt.Rita Singh 02.10.1957 Mohter
4 Indu Kumar Singh 02.01.1955 Father
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal (Rs.)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 22,500
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 11,250
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) 11,250
10. Monthly loss of dependency 22,500
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) 2,70,000
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) 43,20,000
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) 2,00,000
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 80,000
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 15,000
16
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.46,30,000/
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.////
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.///
23. Award amount released Rs.4,30,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.42,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the FDRs
claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 20.03.2020
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2020.02.07
16:27:49 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17 FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 05.12.2014 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 23.02.2015 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 23.02.2015 Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 23.02.2015 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 23.02.2015 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 23.02.2015 by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Sh. Rajesh Jagirdar, Adv. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of No the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 18
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer 24.07.2015 of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 07.02.2020 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent Yes of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of Yes residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card 17.05.2018 and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near 23.07.2018 the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
(Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the Village Naya Tola Madhopur, PS claimant(s). (Clause 27) Bakhtawarpur, Patna, Bihar 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the (i) Rinki Kumari claimant(s) and the address of the bank with A/c No: 496510110006258 the IFSC Code. (Clause 27) (ii) Yash Gaurav A/c No: 49651011000475 Bank of India Daltonganj Branch IFSC: BKID0004965
(iii) Smt.Rita Singh A/c No: 37733721335
(iv) Indu Kumar Singh A/c No: 3733802373 State Bank of India Patliputra Colony, Patna Branch IFSC: SBIN0001513 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes 19 account(s) is near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain Yes his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2020.02.07 16:27:57 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 20 Petition No:76633/2016 07.02.2020 Present: Proxy Counsel for parties.
Vide separate judgmentcumaward announced today, petitioners are awarded a compensation of Rs.46,30,000/ (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Thirty Thousand) along with 9% interest per annum. Award amount be released to the petitioners in terms of the judgment.
Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 20.03.2020.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 07.02.2020