Delhi District Court
Neelam vs Vinod Kumar Pandey on 23 November, 2024
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 1 of44
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 450962/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW-01-000373-2016
1.Smt. Neelam Kumari
W/o Late Sanjay
(Widow of deceased)
2. Anshika
D/o Late Sanjay
(Minor Daughter of deceased)
3. Sh. Rajdev
(Father of Deceased)
4. Smt. Dhanwanti
(Mother of Deceased)
All R/o H.No. H-32, H-Block,
Vijay Vihar, Phase-II
Rohini, Delhi-110085
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey
S/o Sh. Jagdamba Pandey
R/o H.No. 53, Gali No. 3, J2B Block,
Gupta Colony, Sangam Vihar, Delhi
...... Respondent no.1/driver
2. Sh. Dinesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raju Kumar
R/o H.no. 1141, Sector-7,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
...... Respondent no.2/Owner
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
Vide policy no. 1-3KX6ENA P400 No. 92655925
Valid from 02.06.2015 to 01.06.2016.
...... Respondent no.3/R3
MACT No. 450962/16
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 2 of44
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.12.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.11.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2024
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 23.07.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims on 04.12.2015
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the insurance on 04.12.2015
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the petition
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the on 04.12.2015
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company on 04.12.2015
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s). on 04.12.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects? on 04.12.2015
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Petition was filed
removed later on? on 04.12.2015
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR? on 04.12.2015
MACT No. 450962/16
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 3 of44
11. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 23.03.2016
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Shailender
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Kumar, Ld.
Company. Counsel for the
insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to N/A
the offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 23.11.2024
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 21.05.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
MACT No. 450962/16
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 4 of44
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 25.02.2021
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioners
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Neelam Kumari
with IFSC Code savings bank A/c
No.
52082421000077,
Baby Anshika
Kumari A/c No.
52082421000084,
Raj Dev A/c no.
52082421000053
and Dhanvanti
Devi A/c No.
52082421000046
with Oriental
Bank of
Commerce, near
Vishram Chowk,
Rohini, Delhi
IFSC :
ORBC0105208
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
MACT No. 450962/16
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 5 of44
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 04.12.2015, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in respect of demise of Sh. Sanjay, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 112/2015, PS Expressway, Sub District Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, was registered on 23.07.2015, for the commission of alleged offence of causing death, not amounting to culpable homicide and for causing grievous hurt, by rash and negligent driving of a Hyundai Accent Car, bearing registration number DL-4CR-9234, on a public road, punishable under Section 279/338/304A of Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 1 was filed under section 279/338/304A IPC, before concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 6 of44 representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants) are that, on 23.07.2015, at about 6.00 am, when the deceased Sanjay, along with his brother Kishan, were coming to their house, from Noida, on their motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAU-1419 (hereinafter referred as victim's vehicle), which was driven by Kishan, at a normal speed, they were hit from behind, by one Hyundai Accent Car, bearing registration No. DL-4CR-9234 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), in front of Gyan Shree Public School, Expressway Highway, Noida, UP. It was further averred that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver Vinod Kumar Pandey S/o Sh. Jagdamba Pandey (hereinafter referred as driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1), in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said impact, both the victims fell down on the road and the deceased Sanjay, came under the wheels of the offending vehicle, whereas, his brother Kishan sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture in left chest and left shoulder. It was further alleged that after the accident, both the victims were taken to Kailash Hospital, Noida, UP (hereinafter referred as Kailash Hospital), where the victim Sanjay was declared brought dead, vide MLC No. 217/KH/15 and his brother Kishan, after receiving preliminary treatment, went to Vijay Nursing Home, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, for his further treatment.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 7 of44
3. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the deceased Sanjay was conducted at District Mortuary, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar UP, vide PMR No. 786/15, dated 23.07.2015, wherein cause and manner of death was mentioned as shock and hemorrhage, due to antemortem nuptial injuries.
4. As per the petition, the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Dinesh Kumar S/o Raju Kumar (hereinafter referred as registered owner/Respondent no. 2/R2) and the same was insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as insurance company/Respondent no.3/R3), vide policy no. 1-3KX6ENA P400 No. 92655925, valid for the period 02.06.2015 to 01.06.2016.
5. R1 has filed reply to the claim petition, wherein he raised the defence that the accident has taken place, due to negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAU-0419, by the brother of the deceased. He further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with R3, vide Insurance Policy No. 1-3KX6ENA P400 No. 92655925, for the period 02.06.2015 (18.40 hours) to 01.06.2016 and R1 was having valid and effective driving license. R1 further raised the defence that at the time of accident, he had parked the offending vehicle, on the correct side of the road, after switching on, the car indicators/parking lights, so as to ask for way, from passer by, as he got confused MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 8 of44 and was not aware of the way, to go to Delhi from Noida. He further alleged that as R1 was asking way from passerby, suddenly a unknown dumper, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind, hit the offending vehicle and due to the said impact, the offending vehicle hit the railing at the side of the road, resulting in injuries to R1. He further alleged that after the accident, he also lost his consciousness and thereafter, Kishan, brother of the deceased opened the gate of the offending vehicle, moved him rigorously, to wake him up and only thereafter, he came to know that the victim's motorcycle, which was driven by Kishan, and was in front of the offending vehicle, also got hit by the said dumper. He further alleged that thereafter, he along with Kishan, with the help of other passerby, took the deceased, first to Vijay Hospital, Noida, where the said hospital refused to admit the deceased and thereafter, they all went to Kailash Hospital, where, he also got himself treated.
6. R2 has also filed reply to the claim petition, wherein he also raised the defence, that the accident has taken place, due to negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAU-0419, by the brother of the deceased. He further stated that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with R3, vide Insurance Policy No. 1- 3KX6ENA P400 No. 92655925, valid for the period 02.06.2015 (18.40 hours) to 01.06.2016 and R1 was MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 9 of44 having a valid and effective driving license. R2 further stated that on 25.05.2015, he has sold the offending vehicle to Sh. Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Mulchand, R/o 75, Block-G, Palika Awas, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and also handed over the possession of the same to him, and since then, Laxman Singh is having physical possession of the same. Thus, it is averred that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was under the possession and occupation of Laxman Singh and as such, Laxman Singh is liable and responsible for the said accident.
7. In its written statement/reply, R3/insurance company alleged that the petitioners has not disclosed any cause of action against R3. It was further stated that if it is proved during trial, that the offending vehicle was being driven by R1, without holding a valid driving license or that the accident has taken place, due to negligence on the part of driver of victim's vehicle then, R3 is not liable to pay any compensation. R3 however, admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with R3, vide Insurance Policy No. 1- 3KX6ENA P400 No. 92655925, valid for the period 02.06.2015 (18.40 hours) to 01.06.2016. It was further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding proper and valid effective driving license and was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 10 of44
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 14.08.2018:-
1. Whether on 23.07.2015, at about 6.00 am, at Noida Expressway, one Hyundai Accent car bearing registration no. DL4CR-9234, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Vinod Kumar, hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-AU-0419 and caused the death of Sanjay? OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined 02 witnesses. Since, there are two connected petitions, bearing no. 450962/16, titled as Neelam Kumari & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and 450961/16, titled as Kishan Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar, therefore, evidence was consolidated, qua both the petitions and present petition bearing no. 45092/16, was treated as the leading case and the entire evidence qua both the files, was recorded in the present file.
10. In support of their claim petition, the petitioner no.1 Neelam Kumari, got herself examined as PW1, by way of MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 11 of44 evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. PW1 is the wife of the deceased Sanjay and her deposition qua the accident in question and death of the deceased in the accident, is reiteration of the facts contained in the claim petition. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance on copy of the Aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1, copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex.PW1/2, copy of class 10 th class certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/3, original death certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/4, copy of provisional National Trade certificate in the name of deceased as Ex.PW1/5, copy of Aadhar card of Anshika Kumari as Ex.PW1/6, copy of Aadhar card of Raj Dev as Ex.PW1/7 and copy of Aadhar card of mother of the deceased as Ex.PW1/8. PW1 further deposed that she has incurred Rs. 50,000/-, on transportation and last rites of the deceased. She further deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was possessing sound mind and robust physique, as he was working as an electrician, with Panna Lal Ram Gopal, J-10, Udhyog Nagar, Delhi-110041 and was getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. She further deposed that their entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased, as he was the only earning member of their family. She further deposed that had the deceased not died in the accident, then his income would have been doubled and also, he would have lived a long life, with petitioners.
She further deposed that the deceased left behind her, his minor daughter Anshika, his father Raj Dev and his mother Smt. Dhanwanti, as his legal heirs.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 12 of44
11. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and the same cross examination was adopted by Ld. Counsel for R2 and R3, wherein she admitted that she was not present at the spot and that she was not an eye witness to the case accident. She further deposed that her husband/deceased Sanjay was going as a pillion rider, on the motorcycle, which was hit from behind, by a car. She further deposed that she did not remember the registration number of the said motorcycle. She admitted that the facts regarding the accident, as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, are based only upon hearsay evidence. She denied the suggestion that she has not incurred Rs.50,000/- on transportation and last rites of the deceased. She further deposed that she has not placed on record, any document, to prove that her deceased husband was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. She further deposed that her father-in- law Mr. Rajdev, used to work as an electrician, at the time of accident. She voluntarily deposed that he used to have ill health and sometimes used to work, as an electrician. She denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law Smt. Dhanwanti, was dependent upon her father-in-law or that he was not dependent on her deceased husband.
12. The petitioners have further examined Sh. Kishan Kumar as PW2, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW2 is also an injured in the case accident. His deposition qua the accident in question and death of the deceased in the accident, is reiteration of the facts contained in the claim MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 13 of44 petition. In his evidence, PW2 has placed reliance on his original medical treatment record as Ex.PW2/1 (colly), his original medical bills as Ex.PW2/2 (colly), copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/3, copy of his election identity card as Ex.PW2/4, copy of his Driving License as Ex.PW2/5 and certified copies of criminal case record as Ex.PW2/6 (colly).
13. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1, which was also adopted by Ld. Counsel for R2, wherein he deposed that he was driving motorcycle, on which, the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider and their motorcycle was hit from behind, by a Hyundai Accent Car. He further deposed that the registration number of his motorcycle was DL-8S-AU-0419. He further deposed that he did not remember the registration number of the Hyundai Accent Car. He further deposed that he was driving his motorcycle, at a speed of around 40-50 Kms per hours, at the time of accident. He further deposed that they were wearing helmets, at the time of accident. During the course of his cross-examination, Ld. Counsel for R1 had shown him four photographs of the Hyundai Accent Car, from the judicial file, which were Ex.PW2/R1-X1 (colly) and the witness, after going through the said photographs, deposed that the case accident took place with the said offending vehicle. Ld. Counsel for R1 further shown him the copy of mechanical inspection report of Accent Car, bearing MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 14 of44 registration No. DL-4CR-9234 and the said report was Ex.PW2/R1-X2. He denied the suggestion that his bike was not hit by the offending vehicle from its back. He deposed that he was looking towards his front side, while driving the motorcycle and there was a rear view mirror on its right side. Ld. Counsel for R1 has filed three photographs of discover motorcycle on record and the said photographs were exhibited as Ex.PW2/R1-X3 (colly) and the said photographs were shown to the witness, to which he admitted that there was no rear view mirror in the said photographs, as at the time of accident. He voluntarily stated that the said rear view mirror had broken down, at the time of accident and the photographs were taken thereafter, at the PS. He denied the suggestion that there was no rear view mirror, on his bike. Ld. Counsel for R1 has further placed on record, photo copy of mechanical inspection report of motorcycle discover No. DL-8S- AU-0419 and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW2/R1-X4. He denied the suggestion that from the photographs Ex.PW2/R1-X1 (colly) and Ex.PW2/R1-X3 (colly) and from the mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW2/R1-X3 and Ex.PW2/R1-X4, it became clear that the offending vehicle was not hit from behind. He denied the suggestion that there was rear view mirror on his motorcycle or that as he was only looking at the front side, while driving, hence he does not know, as to which vehicle had hit his motorcycle from the back side. He further denied the suggestion that he was not wearing helmet, at the time of MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 15 of44 accident. He further deposed that the police could not recover the helmet of the deceased, as before arrival of the police at the spot, public persons fled away with the purse, mobile and helmet of the deceased. He further deposed that he did not mention the said fact of public persons committing theft, in his petition or to the police, as earlier, he was never asked the said question. He deposed that he could not say, if his motorcycle was insured or not, at the time of accident. He further deposed that he can neither admit nor deny, without looking at the documents, if his bike was insured or not, at the time of accident. He further deposed that he was having a Driving License, in the name of Kishan, at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that the case accident occurred, due to his sole negligent driving. He further denied the suggestion, that his motorcycle was hit by some unknown vehicle or a dumper or that it was not hit by the above said car of R1, from back side. He further denied the suggestion that his motorcycle fell on the road, as he was not in his full senses or that it became disbalanced, due to his own negligent driving. He further denied the suggestion, that he went to the above said car of R1, which was lying parked on the road, after being hit by the same dumper, which hit his motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he sought help of R1, to take his brother to the hospital or that he found that R1 was lying unconscious in his car or that he rigorously shook him, to bring him to senses. He further denied the suggestion that the car of R1 was lying parked MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 16 of44 on the correct side of the road. He further denied the suggestion, that he with the help of R1 and some passerby, took his brother to Vijay Hospital, Noida or that the said hospital kept them waiting, for about half an hour or that it refused to admit the deceased and thereafter they went to Kailash Hospital, Noida. He further denied the suggestion that he was not an injured in the manner, as deposed by him or that if he had been injured, in the manner, as deposed by him, then he could not have waited to come to Rohini, from Noida, to have medical treatment. He admitted that his brother Sanjay did not expire at the spot, immediately after the accident. He denied the suggestion that as he was not aware about the registration number of the above said dumper, hence he has falsely implicated the above said car of R1, in the present case. He further denied the suggestion, that in order to falsely claim compensation from R1 and the offending vehicle, he has falsely implicated them in the present case.
14. PW2 was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that he was working as an electrician. He further deposed that he was earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month, at the time of accident. He further deposed that he has not placed on record any document, to show that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, at the time of accident. He further deposed that he was not medically examined at Kailash Hospital and his MLC was not prepared. He further MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 17 of44 deposed that he has filed false and fabricated medical documents, as he did not receive any injury or that he could not have even stood up, due to the nature of injuries, as mentioned in the medical documents. He further deposed that he has not placed on record any document, to show that he has spent Rs. 20,000/- each, on special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
15. In his defence, R1 got himself examined as R1W1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.R1W1/A, wherein he reiterated his defence, as raised by him in his written statement. In his evidence, R1 has placed reliance on copy of insurance policy, as Mark A, copy of his driving license, as Ex.R1W1/1, copy of RC, as Mark-B, photographs showing condition of the offending vehicle and its mechanical inspection report already Ex.PW2/R1-X1(Colly) and Ex.PW2/R1-X2 respectively, photographs showing condition of victim's vehicle and its mechanical inspection report already Ex.PW2/R1-X3(Colly and Ex.PW2/R1-X4 respectively and copy of his medical bills as Mark-C.
16. R1W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, wherein he admitted that one FIR bearing No. 154/15 U/s 279/338/304A IPC, PS Noida Express Way, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, was registered against him, due to the case accident, on 23.07.2015. He further admitted that the police had also filed chargesheet against him. He further admitted that the offending car, with MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 18 of44 registration no. DL-4CR-9234, was seized by the police, after the accident. He further admitted that he got bail from the court, in the abovesaid FIR. He deposed that he was driving the offending vehicle, with the permission of Sh. Laxman Singh, on the date of accident. He further deposed that Mr. Laxman Singh, had purchased the offending vehicle/car from Mr. Dinesh Kumar. He further deposed that he was not aware, as to who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, at that time. He further deposed that he did not check the registration documents, before taking the vehicle from Mr. Laxman Singh, however, he had seen the insurance documents but, he did not remember the name of the insured. He further deposed that he was having a driving license, at the time of accident. He further deposed that police had seen his driving license but, had returned it to him. He further deposed that on the date of accident, he was coming from Noida to Delhi. He further deposed that he was a resident of Sangam Vihar, Delhi. He further deposed that he had reached Noida, on the date of accident, at about 5.00 am. He further deposed that he had received a call, to see a plot at Noida, due to which, he reached Noida on 23.07.2015, at about 5.00 am but, he could not meet that person and hence, was unable to tell his name. He further deposed that he had to meet the said person, at village Bhangel, Noida but, was unable to meet that person. He further deposed that upon reaching village Bhangel, he called that person but, he did not take his phone. He further deposed that he did not recollect the MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 19 of44 mobile number of that person. He further deposed that he cannot tell the exact distance but, it might be between 12- 15 km, from village Bhangel, to the spot of accident. He further deposed that it took him about 30 minutes, to reach from village Bhangel, to the spot of accident. He further deposed that speed limit on the Expressway for car is 60 km per hour. He denied the suggestion that the case accident occurred, due to his fault. He deposed that he did not make any complaint, regarding hitting of his car, by an unknown dumper. He further deposed that he did not make any complaint, regarding his false implication, to any senior police or judicial authority. He denied the suggestion that his car was already damaged, prior to the case accident or that it did not get damaged, after being hit by the dumper therefore, he did not make any complaint, to the police. He further denied the suggestion that the case accident occurred, due to his rash and negligent driving, by which, he had hit the motorcycle, on which the deceased was a pillion rider. He further denied the suggestion that he was driving the offending car, at a high speed, at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion, that on the date of accident, he did not park his car, at the correct side of the road or that he did not switch on the indicators/parking lights. He further denied the suggestion, that he did not get confused or that no unknown dumper had hit his car and his car did not hit the railing at the side of the road. He further denied the suggestion, that he did not lost his consciousness or that Kishan did not open the MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 20 of44 gate of his car. He further denied the suggestion that Kishan did not rigorously woke him up or that the motorcycle, on which the deceased was a pillion rider, was not hit by the said unknown dumper. He denied the suggestion that he hit his car, with the said motorcycle or that the deceased expired, due to his rash and negligent driving. He denied the suggestion that he has filed a false evidence by way of affidavit or that the facts mentioned in it, are fake and fabricated. He deposed that the photographs and documents, on which he has placed reliance, are fake and fabricated.
17. R1W1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company/R3, wherein he deposed that he was having a valid driving license on the day of accident, which was already Ex.RIWI/1. Ld. Counsel for R2 has adopted the cross-examination of R1W1, as conducted by Ld. Counsel for R3.
18. In his defence, R2 got himself examined as R2W1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.R2W1/A, wherein his deposition qua his defence, is reiteration of the facts contained in his written statement. He has placed reliance on copy of insurance policy already Mark-A, copy of driving license of R1 as Ex.R2W1/1 and copy of delivery receipt as Mark- B. MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 21 of44
19. R2W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, wherein he admitted that his Hyundai Accent Car no. DL-4CR-9234 was seized in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had taken the said vehicle on superdari. He admitted that he was the registered owner of the said vehicle. He further admitted that the said vehicle was insured in his name, with the insurance company, at the time of accident. He deposed that he had given the said vehicle to Sh. Laxman Singh and handed over its possession to him. He denied the suggestion that the contents of his affidavit Ex. R2W1/A are false. R2W1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company/R3, wherein he admitted that the offending car was insured in his name, at the time of accident. He deposed that he did not remember the validity period and the period of taking of the insurance policy. He deposed that he had sold the said car to Mr. Laxman Singh, on 25.05.2015. He admitted that he never intimated to the insurance company, that the said vehicle had been sold by him to someone.
20. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire judicial record.
21. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 22 of44 ISSUE No. 1 Whether on 23.07.2015, at about 6.00 am, at Noida Expressway, one Hyundai Accent car bearing registration no. DL4CR-9234, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Vinod Kumar, hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-AU-0419 and caused the death of Sanjay? OPP.
22. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants.For deciding the present issue, the testimony of Sh. Kishan Kumar, who has been examined by the petitioners as PW2, is relevant, being an injured, as well as an eye witness. PW2 has led his evidence, by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A, wherein he deposed that on 23.07.2015, when he along with his brother namely Sanjay, were coming from Noida, to their house, on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAU-0419, which was driven by PW2 himself, and they reached opposite Gyan Shree Public School, Expressway Highway, Noida, UP, they were hit from behind, by a Hyundai Accent Car, bearing registration no. DL-4CR-9234, which was driven by R1, at a very high speed, as well as rashly and negligently, due to which, both PW2 and his brother fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
23. As per defence raised by R1 in his WS, the accident has not taken place, due to the involvement of the offending vehicle, driven by R1. He further alleged that on the date of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was hit by an MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 23 of44 unknown dumper from behind, when the offending vehicle was parked on the correct side of the road, with proper indication and after hitting his vehicle, the said unknown dumper had also hit the motorcycle of the petitioners. Thus, it is alleged that no accident has taken place, due to the involvement of the offending vehicle, in the case accident.
24. When PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1, the entire defence of R1 was put to PW2 but, PW2 denied all the questions and suggestions, as put to him, thereby denying to the factum of their motorcycle, being hit by an unknown dumper. Rather, PW2 reiterated the averments made by him, during the course of his examination in chief, that the accident has taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
25. During the course of cross-examination of PW2 by Ld. Counsel for R1, three photographs of the victim's vehicle Ex.PW2/R1-X3, three photographs of the offending vehicle Ex.PW2/R1-X1, as well as mechanical inspection reports of victim's vehicle and offending vehicle Ex.PW2/R1-X4 and Ex.PW2/R1-X2 respectively, were shown to PW2 and suggestion was put to PW2, that from the said report and photographs, it stands proved that the accident in question has taken place, by an unknown vehicle, as the offending vehicle was completely damaged from behind but, PW2 denied the said suggestions. To prove his defence, R1 also MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 24 of44 led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A, wherein he reiterated his defence and relied upon the photographs and the mechanical inspection reports, as confronted earlier to PW2. However, perusal of the record reveals that from the three photographs of the offending vehicle, which were shown to PW2, PW2 merely identified the offending vehicle. However, from the said photographs, it cannot be ascertained, as to when, the said photographs were taken and whether the damage to the offending vehicle, which was prima facie evident from the said photographs, was prior to the accident in question or it had taken place subsequently. Therefore, from the said photographs, defence of R1 cannot be said to be proved, that on the date of alleged accident, his vehicle was hit from behind, by an unknown dumper.
26. Further, even the seizure memo of the offending vehicle and victim's vehicle is not on record. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained, as to whether both the vehicles, involved in the accident, were seized from the spot or the same were seized, subsequent to the accident in question. The certified copy of mechanical inspection reports as relied by R1 and which was also confronted to PW2, also reveals that the mechanical inspection was conducted on 28.07.2015 whereas, the accident in question has taken place on 23.07.2015. Therefore, from the said mechanical inspection report also, it cannot be ascertained, whether the damage to MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 25 of44 the offending vehicle, as mentioned in the mechanical inspection report, was as a result of accident, with an unknown vehicle, as alleged by R1.
27. Be that as it may, during the course of his cross-
examination by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, R1 who got himself examined as R1W1, deposed that, against him FIR No. 154/15 U/s 279/338/304A IPC PS Noida Express Way, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, was registered on 23.07.2015 and police had filed chargesheet against him in the said FIR. He further admitted that the offending vehicle was seized by the police, after the accident and he got bail from the court in the said FIR. He also admitted that he had not made any complaint, regarding hitting of his car, by an unknown dumper or regarding his false implication.
28. The said deposition of R1W1 raises doubt, as to the defence raised by R1, because if the offending vehicle was hit by an unknown vehicle, in which R1 had also sustained injuries and there was also substantial damage to his vehicle, then he must have taken steps, for registration of case, against the said unknown vehicle and after becoming aware, as to the registration of FIR against him, he should have taken steps for filing complaint against the police officials, regarding his false implication but, he himself admitted that he had not filed any such complaint.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 26 of44
29. In his evidence, R1W1 further deposed that after the accident, he along with PW2 had first taken the deceased Sanjay to Vijay Hospital, Noida and since, the said hospital refused to give treatment to them, therefore, they went to Kailash Hospital and Heart Healthcare, Noida, where he had also received treatment but, to prove the said aspect, R1 failed to place on record his original treatment papers. He had merely filed photocopy of medical prescription and medical bill and marked it as Mark-C (Colly) but, he failed to depose, as to why he had not filed the original treatment papers. Thus, the said document cannot be taken into consideration.
30. The fact that the deceased Sanjay suffered fatal injuries in the case accident, is also duly corroborated by the post mortem report of the deceased, as per which, the cause of death of the deceased, was mentioned as shock and hemorrhage, due to antemortem nuptial injuries.
31. It is trite law that in Motor Accident Claims Cases, the standard of proof is not as strict as the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal matters and the factum of rashness and negligence is required to be proved only on the touch stone of balance of probabilities.
32. In view of the above said discussion, criminal case record, including charge sheet and testimony of PW2 Kishan MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 27 of44 Kumar, it has been duly proved by the petitioners, on preponderance of probabilities, that the case accident had been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-4CR-9234, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place and had hit the victim's motorcycle, bearing no. DL-8SAU-0419, due to which, the victim Sanjay had sustained fatal injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
33. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled for compensation on the account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased Sanjay in the above mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 28 of44
34. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
35. To prove the factum of dependency of all the petitioners, on the deceased, PW1/Smt. Neelam Kumari, wife of the deceased, got herself examined as PW1. She led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein she deposed that the deceased left behind her, his minor daughter Anshika, his father Raj Dev and his mother Smt. Dhanwanti, as his legal heirs. She further deposed that at the time of accident, deceased was working as an electrician, with Panna Lal Ram Gopal, J-10, Udhyog Nagar, Delhi-110041 and was getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. She further deposed that their entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased, as he was the only earning member of their family.
36. But, to prove income of the deceased, the petitioners failed to place on record any document and during the course of her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for respondents, PW1 admitted that she has not placed on record any MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 29 of44 document, to prove that her deceased husband was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. She further deposed that her father in law Mr. Rajdev used to work as an electrician, at the time of accident but, she voluntarily deposed that he used to have ill health and sometimes used to work, as an electrician. Though, Ld. Counsel for R1 has put a suggestion to PW1, that her mother in law Smt. Dhanwati was dependent upon her father in law or that he was not dependent on her deceased husband but, no efforts were made by any of the respondents, to prove that mother and father of the deceased were not dependent upon the income of the deceased, by leading any evidence. Thus, it can be safely concluded that PW1 has been able to prove that all the petitioners were not having any independent and regular source of income consequently, they were financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, PW1 has been able to prove that all the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, under this head, as they all were dependent legal heirs of the deceased.
37. PW1/wife of the deceased Sanjay failed to prove on record that the deceased Sanjay was working as an electrician, with Panna Lal Ram Gopal, J-10, Udhyog Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, by producing certificate of income, issued by the concerned firm. Had the deceased Sanjay been working as electrician, in said firm, then the petitioners would have definitely made MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 30 of44 efforts, to produce a certificate from the said firm. Thus, on appreciation of evidence of PW1, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners have failed to prove the income of the deceased Sanjay as Rs. 12,000/- per month.
38. The petitioner has proved on record copy of Aadhar card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2, as per which, the deceased was resident of H-23, Vijay Vihar, Phase-2, Rohini, North West Delhi, Delhi-110085. As such, it can be safely concluded that at the time of accident, the deceased was resident of Delhi. PW1 has also proved on record class 10th certificate, in the name of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3, which reflects that the deceased was educated upto 10 th standard. PW1 has also proved on record Provisional National Trade Certificate, in the name of the deceased Sanjay as Ex.PW1/5, which reveals that the deceased has taken vocational training in Electrician trade, in the year 2012. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the deceased is a skilled person. Accordingly, the deceased is entitled to minimum wages, payable to a skilled person in Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident. As per the notification, the Minimum Wages in Delhi, for an skilled person was Rs. 10,998/- per month as on 23.07.2015. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.10,998/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident in question i.e. on 23.07.2015.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 31 of44
39. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that, along with claim petition, the petitioners have placed on record copy of class 10th certificate of the deceased and PW1 exhibited the same as Ex.PW1/3, wherein date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 13.08.1984. The date of accident in the present case is 23.07.2015. Thus, the age of the deceased was 30 years 11 month and 04 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
40. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.2017.
41. Since, it is established on record that at the time of accident, there were four legal heirs of the deceased, who MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 32 of44 were not working for gain. Therefore, all the four legal heirs of the deceased, at the time of accident, which includes his widow, his minor daughter, his father and mother are entitled to receive compensation, being dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/4th of his income, for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining 3/4th of his income towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members. Hence, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.23,55,771.6 (rounded off Rs.23,55,772/-) (10,998/- + 40% (4399.2) = 15,397.20- 1/4 (3,849.3) = 11,547.9 x 12 x 17). Hence, a sum of Rs.23,55,772/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
42. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, 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. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 33 of44 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
43. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that wife, minor daughter, father and mother of the deceased, who were the dependent LRs of the deceased on the date of accident, are entitled for payment of Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,93,600/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 4) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
44. 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. 18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of petitioners.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 34 of44
45. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 23,55,772/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 25,85,672/-
________________
(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Two only).
46. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 04.12.2015 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 04.12.2015 till realization of the compensation amount.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 35 of44
47. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
48. In the case in hand, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has not raised the defence in its WS that at the time of accident, R1 was not holding valid and effective driving license. However, alongwith his written statement, R1 has filed his driving license, which was valid on the date of accident in question and in his evidence, he has exhibited the same as Ex.R1W1/1. There has been no cross-examination of R1/R1W1 by Ld. Counsel for R3, so as to elicit any admission from the testimony of R1W1 that the said license is not genuine. Further, no evidence has been led by R3 so as to prove that the said license is forged and fabricated. Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that R3 failed to prove the said defence. Since the offending vehicle was admittedly duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners as per law.
49. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 36 of44 25,85,672/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
50. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 25.02.2021 regarding savings bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 37 of44 amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
51. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relations Share of Release of Amount Period of No petitioner hip with amount of award of kept in FDR deceased award amount. FDR 1 Neelam Kumari Wife Rs. Rs. Rs. 45 petitioner no. 1 11,85,672/- 2,85,672/- 9,00,000/-
2 Baby Anshika Daughter Rs. Nil Rs. Till attains
Kumari 8,00,000/- 8,00,000/- the age of
petitioner no. 2 majority
3 Raj Dev Father Rs. Rs. Rs. 20
petitioner no. 3 3,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
4 Dhanwanti Devi Daughter Rs. Rs. Rs. 20
Petitioner no. 4 3,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
52. The amount as per the arrangement of aforesaid table be credited in the saving bank accounts of petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1 Neelam Kumari savings bank A/c No. 52082421000077, Petitioner No.2 Baby Anshika bank A/c No. 52082421000084, Petitioner No.3 Raj Dev bank A/c No. 52082421000053, Petitioner No. 4 Dhanwanti bank MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 38 of44 A/c No. 52082421000046, IFSC: ORBC0105208 all accounts with with Oriental Bank of Commerce, near Vishram Chowk, Rohini, Delhi i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount of petitioners be kept in the form of FDRs for the aforesaid period as mentioned in the aforesaid table, with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
53. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 39 of44 account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(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 pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
54. As discussed above, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 40 of44 of Rs. 25,85,672/- with interest @ 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition that is, 04.12.2015 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
55. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
56. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
57. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
58. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 41 of44 Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
59. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
60. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 25.02.2021 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
MACT No. 450962/16Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 42 of44
61. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. Digitally signed by SHAMA SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.11.23 21:42:36 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 23rd November, 2024 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 450962/16 Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 43 of44 FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 23.07.2015
2. Name of deceased: Sanjay
3. Age of the deceased: About 30 years 11 month and 04 days, at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private work
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 10,998/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt Neelam Kumari 38 years Wife
(ii) Baby Anshika 13 years Daughter
(iii) Sh. Rajdev 70 Years Father
(iv) Smt Dhanvanti 68 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 10,998/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 4,399.2/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 10,998/- + 40%
{ (A+B) - C =D}
(4,399.2) = 15,397.2 - 1/4
(3,849.3) = 11,547.9/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,38,574.8/-
12. Multiplier (E) 17
MACT No. 450962/16
Neelam and ors. vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. Page 44 of44
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs. 23,55,771.6/- (rounded F) off to Rs. 23,55,772/-)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,93,600/- (48,400x4) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 25,85,671.6 (rounded off (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) to Rs. 25,85,672/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.50% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs.17,39,403.10 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.43,25,075.10 (rounded (L+M) off to Rs. 43,25,076/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.4,85,672/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.38,39,404/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 22.12.2024 award. (Clause 31) SHAMA Digitally signed by SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA 21:42:31 +0530 Date: 2024.11.23 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 23rd November, 2024 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 450962/16