Delhi District Court
Pooran Chand Satywali And Ors vs Mohd Salman And Anr on 15 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -01, NORTH
WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
==================================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-008874-2019 MACT CASE No. 556/2019 FIR No. 203/19, PS Babugarh, District Hapur, UP In the matter of :
Manish Satywali S/o Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali (deceased) through LRs:
1. Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali S/o Late Sh. Hari Dutt
2. Smt. Kamla Satywali W/o Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali
3. Ms. Aarti Satyawali D/o Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali All R/o H.No.A-143, Gali No.10, Baljeet Vihar, Nithari, Delhi-110086.
.....Petitioner Vs.
1. Mohd. Salman S/o Irshad R/o H.No.67, Maszid Daroga Wali, Kurana, PS Hazipur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
....Driver-cum-owner/R1
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Co. Ltd.
Off. At: 505, 5th Floor, Kailash Building, 26 KG Marg, New Delhi.
........Insurer/R2
Date of institution of the petition : 18.09.2019
Date of final Arguments : 21.03.2024
Date of Decision : 15.04.2024
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19)
Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 1 of 22 Appearance (s) :Sh. Dinesh Masant, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Vinod Kumar, ld. Counsel for respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle . Sh. V. K. Gupta, ld. counsel for R2/insurance Co.
J U D G M E N T / AWAR D
1. Vide this Judgment-cum-Award, I shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (in short, the Act) filed by LRs of deceased for grant of compensation with regard to death in the road vehicular accident which occurred on 31.07.2019.
2. It is stated that it is stated that the petitioner was coming to Delhi from Modabad on his vehicle bearing no. DL-4SCY-4319 i.e. motorcycle (in short, the said vehicle) on 31.07.2019 at about 5:30 pm and when he reached near Punjab National Bank, Babugarh Chhawani at National Highway No.9, then one truck bearing no. UP- 37T-6186 (in short the offending vehicle) which was going ahead of deceased, suddenly applied brakes. As a result of sudden application of brakes by respondent no.1. the said vehicle of the deceased dashed with truck and Manish Satywali received serious injuries. As a result of such collision, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The deceased was immediately taken to CHC Government Hospital, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh where he was declared dead. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and without any reason stopped the vehicle negligently on the highway. The respondent no.1 stopped the offending truck without giving any indication to stop on the middle of the halfway and even no precaution as per traffic rules.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 2 of 22
3. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of his death and was employed with Inner Chef Private Limited as Commi-1 (Chef) and he was drawing salary of about Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased has also completed his Bachelor degree in Chef.
4. It is further stated that the deceased was unmarried. The petitioner no.1 is the father of deceased and is unemployed. Petitioner no.2 is the mother of deceased and is a house wife. Petitioner no.3 is unmarried sister of deceased. It is further stated that the futute prospects of the deceased were very high and he could have earned livelihood upto his 90 years of age.
5. It is stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the LRs of deceased.
6. Written statement has been filed on behalf of R1/driver-cum-
owner of the offending vehicle and it is inter alia submitted that the present petition is based on suppressed statement of facts and does not disclose any cause of action against the answering respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not come with the clean hands before this court and have concealed the material facts and file the present petition to extort money from the answering respondent.
7. It is further submitted that the answering respondent no.1 is MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 3 of 22 the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and he has driven the said offending vehicle in a normal speed and obeying traffic rules and the vehicle was also insured with the respondent no.2 i.e. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. and the said insurance was also valid vide police No.61010377 valid from 10.06.2019 to 09.06.2020 and the driver/respondent no.1 was also having valid driving license.
8. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2/Insurance Company and, inter alia, it is submitted that the accident has taken place only because of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself as he failed to keep safe distance from offending truck bearing no.UP-37T-6186 and hit his motorcycle in the said truck from behind. Thus, the answering respondent is not liable to pay compensation. So, the present case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. After completion of the pleadings, the learned predecessor of this court, vide order dated 22.12.2020 has framed the following issues :
1. Whether deceased Manish Satyawali, S/o Sh. Pooran Chand Satyawali expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 31.07.2019 at about 5:30 P.M. at Punjab National Bank, N.H. 9, Bahadurgarh, Uttar Pradesh, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing no.
UP-37T-6186 which was being driven by driver Md. Salman S/o Irshad on the said date, time and place? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? OPP.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 4 of 22
3. Relief.
10. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence. In order to prove its case, Sh. Pooran Chand Satyawali has examined himself as PW1, and has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied on the following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/1 Certified Copy of FIR
2. Ex.PW1/2 Copies of Offer Letter, Certificate & Salary Slip(colly).
3. Ex.PW1/3 Copies of Educational & Professional Qualification & Training documents (Colly) (OSR)
4. Ex.PW1/4 Copies of RC of Motor Cycle bearing No.DL4SCY4319 (OSR)
5. Ex.PW1/5 Copies of Driving Licence of deceased (OSR).
6. Ex.PW1/6 Certified copies of Final Report including postmortem, site plan, Panchnama etc. (Colly)
7. Ex.PW1/7 Copies of Aadhar Card of claimants (colly) (OSR)
8. Ex.PW1/2 is de-exhibited as the original of the same are not available and the same be read as Mark "A" (Colly).
11. In cross-examination by Ld. counsel for R1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, PW1 testified that FIR was lodged by him. He further testified that he was not present at the spot. He deposed that the knowledge of the accident came to him through police official by telephonic message. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to fault of his son. He further denied the suggestion that his son hit the offending vehicle was in running condition.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 5 of 22
12. In cross examination by Ld. counsel for R2/insurance company, PW-1 deposed that he cannot tell the manner of the accident as he was not present at the spot. He deposed that he was doing private job at Karol Bagh as Driver and earning Rs.16,000/-per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that he do not have any documentary proof regarding the same. He denied the suggestion that the petitioners were not financially dependent upon the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that the documents filed by him on record are false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed for gain or that he was not earning on the date of accident. He deposed that the date of birth of deceased was 31.03.1997. He denied the suggestion that the said vehicle has falsely been implicated in the present case in collusion with the police and driver and owner of the vehicle. He deposed that the deceased was not filing any ITR.
13. Sh. Brijpal has examined himself as PW-2 and deposed that he is the summoned witness. His shop is at NH-9 at Babugarh Chawni Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. He deposed that on 31.07.2019 at about 5.30 PM he was outside from his shop. He further deposed that at that time one Canter bearing no. UP37T6186 stopped near his shop and one man came from the behind and hit the Canter and fell down, sustained injuries and died. He deposed that he took the injured to the nearby Govt. hospital. The police reached at the hospital and he came back to his shop.
14. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for R2/insurance MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 6 of 22 company, he testified that he did not lodge any police report regarding the accident. He further testified that one unknown person had probably lodged the police report. However, he do not know his particulars. He deposed that the police never took him to the spot of accident and he never gave any statement to the police regarding the accident. He deposed that he never told anything about the accident to the police and he took the injured to the hospital in a car. He further deposed that he does not remember the name of the hospital and after stopping the truck the truck driver got down from the truck and had crossed the divider and then the motorcyclist struck his motorcycle from behind. He further deposed that the front portion of the motorcycle had strucked against the back portion of the truck and the truck was in a stationary position on the extreme left side of NH-9. He further deposed that the accident took place at 5.00-5.30 PM and there was a clear weather on the said day and there was no other vehicle near by the truck at the time of accident. He deposed that the offending truck was of red colour and it was a Canter of six tyres and the registration number of the said Canter was UP37T6186. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to sole negligence of the deceased or that the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and regulations. He further denied the suggestion that the he was not an eye witness of the accident. He further denied the suggestion that the said Canter has falsely been implicated in collusion with the police officials.
15. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for R1/driver-cum-
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 7 of 22 owner of the offending vehicle, he denied the suggestion that the number of Canter has been deposed by him at the instance of petitioner and has adopted the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company.
16. Thereafter, petitioners evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
17. In order to prove its case, Mohd. Salman has been examined as R1W1, who has deposed in terms of his affidavit of evidence Ex. R1W1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
1. Copies of the RC, insurance and permit of the offending vehicle is Ex.R1W-1/1 (colly running into 3 pages).
2. Copy of the driving license is Ex.R1W1/2.
18. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for petitioner, R1W1 denied the suggestion that he was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner on the date of accident. He further denied the suggestion that he did not give any signal or dipper before stopping his vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that he tried to park his vehicle at a wrong place. He deposed that the criminal case in respect to this accident is pending before the Ld. MM.
19. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for R2/insurer, R1W1 denied the suggestion that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
20. In order to prove its case, Sunidhi Mittal has been examined as R2W1, who has deposed in terms of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and has MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 8 of 22 relied upon the following documents i.e. office copy of notice is Ex.R2W1/1, registered postal receipt is Ex.R2W1/2 and copy of insurance policy is Ex.R2W1/3.
21. In her cross examination, she deposed that the respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving license. Thereafter, respondents evidence was closed.
22. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Manish Satyawali, S/o Sh. Pooran Chand Satyawali expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 31.07.2019 at about 5:30 P.M. at Punjab National Bank, N.H. 9, Bahadurgarh, Uttar Pradesh, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing no.
UP-37T-6186 which was being driven by driver Md. Salman S/o Irshad on the said date, time and place? OPP.
23. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 9 of 22 reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
24. Petitioners have examined PW-1 to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. PW-1, in his cross-examination has admitted that he is not eye-witness of the accident.
25. PW-2 Sh. Brijpal is summoned witness. He deposed that on 31.07.2019 at about 5:30 om, he was outside from his shop and at that time one caner bearing no.UP37T6186 stopped near his shop and one man came from the behind hit the canter and fell down and sustained injuries and died. He deposed that he took the injured to the nearby Government Hospital and the police reached at the hospital and he came back to hospital.
26. The testimony of PW-2 against the respondent no.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent no.1 was present at the spot at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view of site plan, it reflects that the offending vehicle was stopped at Highway not on the service lane. Thus, it shows that the said accident has taken place due to driver of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, as a result of which, the deceased lost his life.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 10 of 22
27. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
29. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 11 of 22 COMPENSATION
30. 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 the (c) the number of dependents. The 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 of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
31. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no.1 namely Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali is the father of deceased, the claimant/petitioner no.2 Smt. Kamla Satywali is the mother of deceased and claimant/petitioner no.3 Ms. Aarti Satywali is the sister of deceased. As per the driving license of deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 31.03.1997 and the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of the accident. PW-1 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no witness has been examined by the petitioners to prove the the factum of salary of the deceased but he has filed the bachelor degree in chef Ex.PW1/3 (Colly). Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 12 of 22 accident, has been treated as that of "Graduate". Therefore, on the date of accident i.e 31.07.2019, the minimum wages of graduate in Delhi is Rs. 19,060/- per month.
32. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
33. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 22 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "18" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
34. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and was having a permanent job at that time of the said accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 13 of 22
35. The deceased was unmarried and the father and sister of deceased are not dependant on him. Thus, as per the above discussion, only mother is to be considered as dependant upon him. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one half (1/2)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No
1. Monthly Income of 19,060
deceased (A)
2. Add: Future prospects @ 7,624 40% of (A)
40% (B)
3. Less: Personal expenses 13,342 [(A)+ (B)] /
of deceased @ one half
2= (C)
(1/2) (C)
4. Monthly loss of 13,342 [(A)+(B)]-
dependency(D) (C)= (D)
5. Annual Loss of 1,60,104 (D) x 12 =
dependency (E) (E)
6. Multiplier @ 18
7. Total Loss of dependency 28,81,872 (E) x
18(multiplier
(F)
) = (F)
Total rounded off 28,81,872
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
36. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 14 of 22 Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
37. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, I am of the considered opinion that the father, mother and sister of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs.1,32,000/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 3) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
38. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 28,81,872
2 Loss of Consortium 1,32,000
(Rs.44,000x 3)
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19)
Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 15 of 22
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 33,000
Expenses (Rs.16,500/- each)
T O TAL 30,46,872
39. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that, though the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case, however, the offending vehicle has been duly insured with respondent no.2, therefore, respondent no.2/Insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
40. I have gone through the rival contention of ld. Counsel for the parties. From the pleadings on record, it cannot be stated that any defence has been raised by ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 which creates a shadow of cloud over the claim of the petitioners Therefore, in view of the same, respondent No.2 /Insurance company is held liable to pay compensation/Award amount to the claimants/ petitioners. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs.30,46,872/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 18.09.2019 till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 16 of 22 APPORTIONMENT
42. The statement of petitioner No.1/ Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali Father of the deceased, petitioner no.2/Smt. Kamla Satywali/mother of deceased and petitioner no.3/Aarti Satyawali sister of deceased in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 08.12.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the amount is disbursed as follows :
(a) Petitioner No.1/ Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali (father of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.46,872/-
(Rupees Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) alongwith proportionate interest;
(b) Petitioner No.2/ Smt. Kamla Satywali (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
(c) Petitioner No.3/Aarti Satyawali (sister of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
43. The share amount of Rs.46,872/- of petitioner No.1/Sh. Pooran Chand Satywali shall be immediately released to him in his MACT Saving Bank Account No. 671302010025733 IFSC Code:
UBIN0567132 in Union Bank, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
44. Out of share amount of petitioner No.2/Smt. Kamla Satywali, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) shall be immediately released to her in her MACT Saving Bank Account No. 671302010022313 IFSC Code: UBIN0567132 in Union Bank, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi and the remaining amount alongwith MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 17 of 22 interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
45. Out of share amount of petitioner No.3/Ms. Aarti Satyawali, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) shall be immediately released to her in her MACT Saving Bank Account No. 671302010022312 IFSC Code: UBIN0567132 in Union Bank, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi and the remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
46. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(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 bank to the claimant(s).
(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.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 18 of 22
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature 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.
(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 alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
47. Respondent no.2/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 19 of 22 Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners/claimants. Copy of this Award be also sent to the respondent no.2 through Counsel for information and compliance.
48. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
49. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 20 of 22
50. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties.
Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
51. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
52. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
53. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 21 of 22 A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 15.05.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15th DAY OF APRIL 2024 (SH. SHIVAJI ANAND) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No.556/19 (FIR no.203/19) Pooran Chand Satywali & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Salman & Anr.
Page no. 22 of 22