Delhi District Court
Bishni Devi Bhatt & Ors. vs . Momeen & Ors. on 8 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
BISHNI DEVI BHATT & ORS. VS. MOMEEN & ORS.
MACP NO. 449/16
Smt. Bishni Devi Bhatt (since deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Leela Dhar Bhatt
Through her legal heirs :-
1. Suresh Chand Bhatt
S/o Late Sh. Leela Dhar Bhatt
2. Jagdish Bhatt
S/o Late Sh. Leela Dhar Bhatt
3. Dinesh Bhatt
S/o Late Sh. Leela Dhar Bhatt
All residents of :-
H.No. F-115, Near Shemrock Play School,
Mother Dairy, Sector-56, Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201301.
4. Smt. Hema Joshi (since deceased)
W/o Sh. Mohan Chand Joshi,
D/o Late Sh. Leela Dhar Bhatt,
Through her legal heirs :-
(i) Mohan Chander Joshi
S/o Sh. D.N. Joshi
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.1 of 24
(ii) Garima Joshi
D/o Sh. Mohan Chander Joshi
(iii) Charu Joshi
D/o Sh. Mohan Chander Joshi
(iv) Aviral Joshi
S/o Sh. Mohan Chander Joshi
All R/o H.No. 400, Type-4,
Sector-4, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110022.
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Momeen (Driver)
S/o Sh. Nasibu,
R/o H.No. 59, New Roshanpura Village,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. M/s NCR Travels (Owner)
201, First Floor, Sector-47,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
IFFCO Tower, Plot No. 3, Sector-29,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 05.04.2016
Date of filing of claim petition : 04.06.2016
Date of framing of issues : 29.08.2016
Date of concluding arguments : 08.03.2021
Date of decision : 08.09.2021
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition relates to injuries suffered by petitioner in a road accident that took place on 31.07.2015, at about 09.20 am, at Aruna Asif Ali Road, Near MACP No. 449/16 Page no.2 of 24 Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi regarding which one FIR bearing no.747/15, under Sections 279/337/304- A IPC & 56/66(1)/192A MV Act was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (North). The offending vehicle involved in this case is a Innova car bearing registration no. HR-55V-7624, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by R-1 (respondent no. 1), owned by R-2 (respondent no.2) and insured with R-3 (respondent no. 3).
2. The case of petitioners, briefly stated, is that on the above said date, time and place of accident, the petitioner Ramesh C. Bhatt along with driver Mohit Kumar of MACP No. 450/16 was going in his car bearing registration No. DL-9CQS-5539 to National Institute of Immunology, near JNU, Aruna Asif Ali Road. When they reached at Aruna Asif Ali Road via Green Park, the driver of the said car was taking U turn for going to the office of Ramesh C. Bhatt, suddenly an Innova car bearing registration No. HR-55V-7624 came from Vasant Kunj side and hit their car. As a result thereof, their car was badly damaged from the left side and petitioner Ramesh C. Bhatt and driver Mohit sustained injuries due to direct hit of the offending vehicle. The people from the office of Ramesh C. Bhatt came at the spot of accident and both were removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre. Ramesh C. Bhatt was declared brought dead by the doctors and Mohit fortunately survived.
3. R-3/Insurance Company had filed its reasoned decision wherein they had claimed that the offending vehicle was being plied and used without valid permit which tantamounts to violation and breach of policy terms and conditions. It has further been claimed that R-1 was not having a valid driving license and the driving license handed over by him to the IO was found to be fake upon verification by the IO. R-2 had also failed to produce the permit and fitness of the offending vehicle.
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.3 of 24
4. It is necessary to mention here that MACP No. 449/16 & MACP No. 450/16 arose out of the same accident and hence, they were consolidated for the purposes of trial and decision. However, the petition bearing No. MACP No. 450/16 qua Mohit was disposed off vide order dated 29.06.2021 as certain technical arguments were being raised in the present matter.
5. From pleadings of the parties, my Ld. Predecessor had framed the following consolidated issues on 29.08.2016 for disposal of the present claim petition :-
1. Whether Ramesh C. Bhatt (deceased in MACP No. 449/16) sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Mohit (petitioner in MACP No.450/16) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 31.07.2015 at about 09.20 hrs, Aruna Asif Ali Road, Near Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55V-7624 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. However, I shall deal with issues only so far as it pertains to Sh. Ramesh C. Bhatt of MACP No. 449/16. as the MACP No. 450/16 stands already disposed off by this tribunal.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Amit Gaurav Singh, Ld. Counsel for R- 3/Insurance Company. However, none has turned up on behalf of R-1 and R-2 for addressing final arguments. The case record has also been perused.
8. During the course of arguments in the present case, an legal objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company that in the MACP No. 449/16 Page no.4 of 24 present case, no relief could be granted to the claimants on record as the original claimant Bishni Devi had expired during the pendency of the case and the right to sue did not survive in favour of her LRs. The reliance was placed upon the decision in case Bhagwati Bai Vs. Bablu @ Mukund, AIR 2007 M.P. 38. However, I have noticed that an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was allowed after the death of Smt. Bishni Devi on 17.07.2017 on the premise that the right to sue survives and the case has continued for several years thereafter. The said order was not brought to the notice of this tribunal when arguments were being advanced and the matter was argued as if the application for substitution of LRs was never filed nor allowed by this tribunal. The said order was never challenged by the Insurance company and therefore, this issue cannot be gone into by this tribunal at this stage considering the order dated 17.07.2017.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under: -
ISSUE NO. 110. 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 M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions 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, 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 MACP No. 449/16 Page no.5 of 24 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
11. Petitioners in support of their claim had examined on record total three witnesses. Mother of deceased has stepped into the witness as PW1, Mohit Kumar of MACP No. 450/16 was examined as PW2 and Sh. Padam Singh Rawat, Finance & Accounts Officer, National Institute of Immunology, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi as PW3. Since PW2 had nothing to do with the above accident or its manner, it is the testimony of petitioner/PW2 only which matters for determination of present issue.
12. Mohit Kumar of MACP No. 450/16 was examined as PW2 in the present case. He exhibited his affidavit dated 12.12.2017 as Ex. PW2/A where he categorically deposed regarding the factum as well as manner of the said accident which has already been discussed herein above. It may be pertinent to note here that this witness was only cross examined on behalf of Insurance Company and not on behalf of driver and owner of the offending vehicle who have never participated in the proceedings, although they had appeared on several dates. During his cross examination, he has deposed that when he was taking U turn, the offending vehicle was at a distance of 70/100 metres away from his car. He has further deposed that the speed of offending vehicle was more than 100 km per hour. He has also volunteered that the driver of offending vehicle had changed the lane due to which it struck against his car. Clearly, nothing material could be extracted out from him in his cross- examination which can make this tribunal to disbelieve or discard his testimony. There is no reason or ground as to why this tribunal should not believe and act upon his testimony as the same is found trustworthy and convincing.
13. Moreover, the oral testimony of petitioners is also found MACP No. 449/16 Page no.6 of 24 substantiated from records of the criminal case, which have been filed with the DAR as Ex. PW1/5 (colly). R-1 has already been charge-sheeted in the above criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC for causing simple injury on the person of injured Mohit Kumar and fatal injuries to Ramesh C. Bhatt by his rash and negligent driving of the said car and the same in itself is a strong circumstance to corroborate the testimony of petitioners on above aspects.
14. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioners on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident resulting into fatal injuries to deceased Ramesh C. Bhatt took place due to rash and negligent driving of the above offending car bearing no. HR-55V-7624, which was being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 215. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the above offending vehicle/R-1 has been satisfactorily proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensation for the death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be as under the following heads:-
(i) Loss of dependency
16. Mother of deceased has appeared as PW1 and in her affidavit, her deceased son was Technical Officer with National Institute of Immunology, Aruna Asif Ali Marg, New Delhi and was earning Rs. 49,118/- per month. She has further deposed that her deceased son was MACP No. 449/16 Page no.7 of 24 entitled to increment every year and in addition, he was also entitled for dearness allowance after every six months and also for the benefits of revision of pay as per the implementation of 7th CPC. However, in her cross examination, the witness admitted that certain financial assistance and payments were received by her from the employer of her deceased son. She further deposed that she was receiving pension to the tune of Rs. 7000/- per month after the death of her husband. She has three sons besides her deceased son. She further submits that her deceased son was living independently at the official accommodation provided to him by his employer and he used to visit them on weekends and holidays only. She further deposed that all her sons were taking care of her and meeting her expenses from time to time.
17. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, PW1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) in which the date of birth is found recorded as 20.07.1962. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased at the time of accident comes to 53 years and around 11 days. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '11' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners in respect of death of the deceased Sh. Ramesh C. Bhatt in the present case.
18. In order to prove the income of deceased, the petitioners have examined on record one Sh. Padam Singh Rawat, Finance & Accounts Officer from the office of deceased as PW3 who have brought the pay slip of Sh. Ramesh C. Bhatt for the month of July, 2015 as Ex.
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.8 of 24 PW3/A and attested copy of month wise pay bill register as Ex. PW3/B (colly) (OSR). As per Ex. PW3/A, the gross income of deceased was Rs. 49,118/- per month and this tribunal has no hesitation in taking it as salary of the deceased at the time of accident and thus, the annual earnings of the deceased come to Rs.5,89,416/- (Rs.49,118/- X 12) and in view of the settled law on subject, only the tax liability, if any, of the deceased is to be reduced from his above annual earnings as his 'income' means the actual income less than the tax paid, as was also approved in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). As per the income tax rates prevailing at the time of accident, an amount of Rs. 44,170/- is required to be deducted towards tax liability. Hence, after deduction of tax, the annual income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 5,45,246/- (Rs.5,89,416/- - Rs. 44,170/-) and the monthly income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 45,437/-.(Rs. 5,45,246/12).
19. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Sushila Yadav & Ors. ; Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chetan Parkash Kaushik & Ors. ; Sushila Yadav & Ors., 2017 LawSuit (Del.) 3185, the allowances in the nature of transport allowance, washing allowance, metropolitan allowance, ration money and conveyance allowance are regular in nature and are for benefit of the family and hence, these would necessarily result in corresponding savings and thus, the denial of these allowances would be net loss for the family of deceased. Hence, these allowances are liable to be included for calculating the salary of deceased.
20. Now coming to the dependency aspect, since PW3 in his evidence has deposed that as per office record, the deceased was unmarried. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), MACP No. 449/16 Page no.9 of 24 50% of his above earnings is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and number of dependents for calculating his personal or living expenses becomes irrelevant.
21. Further, in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to 15% of the above amount towards future prospects as the deceased was a permanent government employee and was between 51 to 60 years of age at the time of death.
22. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.34,48,668/- (rounded off) (Rs.45,437/- X 50/100 X 115/100 X 11 X 12) and the said amount is being awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
23. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased petitioner Smt. Bishni Devi Bhatt is also held entitled to amounts of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. a total amount of Rs.30,000/- under both these heads.
24. In view of the recent Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 in case United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020 and the Division Bench judgment dated 07.09.2020 in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati & Ors. (2020) 09 SC CK 0012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection' cannot be MACP No. 449/16 Page no.10 of 24 separately granted and has to be considered within the head 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, the deceased petitioner Smt. Bishni Devi Bhatt is entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- only towards 'loss of consortium'.
25. Further, it has been noticed that the Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2017 and it was also laid down by their Lordships in the said case that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amounts awarded under the conventional heads of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'.
26. Hence, the petitioners are being awarded a total sum of Rs. 77,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 + 10% of 40,000 = 44,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
27. The petitioners are thus held entitled to a sum of Rs. 35,25,668/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight only) (Rs. 34,48,668/- + 77,000/-) along with interest from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
28. It is necessary to mention here that PW3 Sh. Padam Singh Rawat in his evidence has deposed about the details of amounts paid to the mother of deceased on account of death of deceased which are as MACP No. 449/16 Page no.11 of 24 follows :-
(i) A sum of Rs. 10 lacs towards the death cum retirement gratuity.
(ii) A sum of Rs. 4,18,790/- towards leave encashment.
(iii) A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards contribution from staff welfare fund.
(iv) A sum of Rs. 3,51,169/- towards group insurance.
(v) A sum of Rs. 15,08,660/- towards contributory provident fund.
29. In the case of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5513 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6367 of 2012), decided on 03.05.2013, the following observations have been made by the Lordship :-
19. The first issue is "whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction." The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court:
"35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, MACP No. 449/16 Page no.12 of 24 which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage"
liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual."
30. During the cross examination of PW3, the witness stated that the contribution to staff welfare fund was being made by all the staff members for a nominal amount. The payment from the fund was made only in the event of death or physical injury. It was further stated by the witness that the amount from the staff welfare fund was made on account of accidental and untimely death in the accident. It was not further asked MACP No. 449/16 Page no.13 of 24 or suggested that the amount was paid only on account of road accident. Therefore, the distinction between death in road accident and mere accidental death being relevant for the purpose of payment from staff welfare fund was never put to the witness or proved. Hence, none of the amount received by mother of the deceased can be deducted since there is no evidence to indicate that the said amounts were paid only on account of death arising out of road accident.
APPORTIONMENT
31. As already discussed above, all the petitioners are considered dependents upon the deceased. Hence, out of the above awarded amount along with proportionate interest, 25% share each is given to P-1 to P-4. Since P-4 Smt. Hema Joshi has already expired during the course of proceedings, her 25% share is equally apportioned amongst four legal heirs.
RELEASE
32. Out of amount awarded to P-1, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account number bearing No. 135810100094617, having IFSC Code ANDB0001358, being maintained with Andhra Bank, Sector-56, District MACP No. 449/16 Page no.14 of 24 Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
33. Out of amount awarded to P-2, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 60322072927, having IFSC Code MAHB0001181 being maintained at Bank of Maharashtra, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
34. Out of amount awarded to P-3, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 135810100094662, having IFSC Code ANDB0001358 being maintained at Andhra Bank, Sector-56, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said MACP No. 449/16 Page no.15 of 24 account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
35. Out of amount awarded to P-4 (i), 75% amount is directed to be kept in 2 annual FDRs of equal amounts for a period of 1 and 2 years in succession with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is directed to be released into his savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 26400100025452, having IFSC Code BARB0SAFECX, being maintained with Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his above saving bank account.
36. Out of amount awarded to P-4 (ii), 75% amount is directed to be kept in 2 annual FDRs of equal amounts for a period of 1 and 2 years in succession with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is directed to be released into his savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 0612000103287811, having IFSC Code PUNB0061200, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, Delhi, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his above saving bank account.
37. Out of amount awarded to P-4 (iii), 75% amount is directed to be kept in 2 annual FDRs of equal amounts for a period of 1 and 2 years in succession with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is directed to be released into his savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 0612000103287802, having IFSC Code PUNB0061200, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, Delhi, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his MACP No. 449/16 Page no.16 of 24 above saving bank account.
38. Out of amount awarded to P-4 (iv), 75% amount is directed to be kept in 2 annual FDRs of equal amounts for a period of 1 and 2 years in succession with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is directed to be released into his savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 0612000103287820, having IFSC Code PUNB0061200, being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his above saving bank account.
39. The above disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their above shares.
40. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioners i.e. the above accounts of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
41. The original fixed deposits be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amounts shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
42. The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be MACP No. 449/16 Page no.17 of 24 allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
44. Petitioners have already produced before this tribunal their original passbooks containing necessary endorsements that no cheque books and ATM cards shall be issued in their above said accounts and they have also filed copies thereof on record along with their aadhar cards and PAN cards.
LIABILITY
45. It is the case of respondent no. 3 that the driving license of the respondent no. 1 was fake and therefore, there was breach of the applicable policy terms and conditions and it was not liable to pay any amount. The respondents no. 1 and 2 never stepped into the witness box to establish a claim regarding the validity and issuance of driving license to respondent no. 1 by the respective transport authority, Kanpur, U.P. On the contrary, the respondent no. 3 produced one Sh. Siddharth Jaiswal who exhibited a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC seeking the original driving license, permit to enter Delhi etc. He deposed that no document was ever produced pursuant to notice. Further he relied upon the report/letter dated 21.09.2015 (Ex. R3W1/A) which is part of DAR and filed by the IO. The said document reports that the driving license no. M96110/UP was never issued by the Licensing Authority, Kanpur as appears from the driving license seized by the IO. Therefore, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance executed between MACP No. 449/16 Page no.18 of 24 them. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR either by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R-3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event R-3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond 90 days from today and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of R-3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
46. R-3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amounts are being deposited so as to facilitate them to collect their cheques.
47. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
48. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
49. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.19 of 24
1. Date of the accident 31.07.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by I.O.
Not given
to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by I.O.
Not given
to the Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report u/s.173 Cr.PC
Not given
before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report
05.04.2016
(DAR) by IO before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on Insurance
05.04.2016
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on claimant(s). 05.04.2016
8. Whether DAR was complete in all
Yes
respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR No
10. Whether the police has verified the
Yes
documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the DAR has been filed after around 8 Investigating Officer? If so, whether any months of accident action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not given Officer by the Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Not given the Designated Officer of Insurance Co.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report No within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the No Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.20 of 24
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of
No
the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 08.09.2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the
No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 03.04.2018 Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to claimants and make an endorsement to this effect on passbooks.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank Yet to be furnished.
account near the place of their residence alongwith endorsement, PAN & Adhaar Cards?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the P-1 to P-3 are residents of H.No. Claimant(s) F-115, Near Shemrock Play School, Mother Dairy, Sector-56, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201301.
Legal heirs of P-4 are residents of H.No. 400, Type-4, Sector-4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the As mentioned above. bank with IFSC Code.
25. Whether the claimant (s) savings bank account (s) is near his place of Yes residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.21 of 24
50. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 20.12.2021.
Announced in the open court. (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) on 08.09.2021 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 449/16 Page no.22 of 24 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 31.07.2015
2. Name of the deceased : Ramesh C. Bhatt
3. Age of the deceased : 53 years and around 11 days
4. Occupation of the deceased : Technical Officer with National Institute of Immunology, Delhi.
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 45,437/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Suresh Chand 52 years Brother
(ii) Jagdish Bhatt 48 years Brother
(iii) Dinesh Bhatt 46 years Brother
(iv) Mohan Chander Joshi 56 years Sister husband
(v) Garima Joshi 29 years Sister daughter
(vi) Charu Joshi 24 years Sister daughter
(vii) Aviral Joshi 20 years Sister son
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased (A) Rs.45,437/-
8 Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs.6,815.55
9 Less-Personal expenses of Rs.26,126.275
the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs.26,126.275
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of dependency Rs.3,13,515.3
(D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 11
13 Total loss of dependency Rs.34,48,668/- (rounded off)
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of Nil
love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of Rs.44,000/-
consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss of Rs.16,500.00
estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500.00
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.23 of 24
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.35,25,668/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 6% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED DAR till deposit in 30 days
and 9% after 90 days.
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs.11,48,691.61
of award (M)
22 Total amount including interest Rs. 46,74,359.61 (rounded
(L+M) off to Rs.46,75,000/-)
23 Award amount released P-1= 25% of his share.
P-2= 25% of his share.
P-3= 25% of his share.
P-4= 25% share of each legal
heir.
24 Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1 = 75% of his share.
MACAD P-2 = 75% of his share.
P-3 = 75% of his share.
P-4= 75% share of each legal
heir.
25 Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to claimant(s)
26 Next date for compliance of 20.12.2021
the award
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
08.09.2021
MACP No. 449/16 Page no.24 of 24