Delhi District Court
Anju Devi @ Anju & Ors. vs . Rajan Singh Negi @ Raju on 14 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANJU DEVI @ ANJU & ORS. VS. RAJAN SINGH NEGI @ RAJU
SINGH NEGI & ORS.
MACP NO. 600/16
1. Smt. Anju Devi @ Anju
W/o Late Sh. Sher Singh
2. Kavita
3. Chandni
4. Rahul Singh
5. Khashti
Petitioner nos. 2 to 5 being minors represented
through their mother as natural guardian
Smt. Anju Devi @ Anju/petitioner no. 1 herein.
6. Smt. Vishani Devi
W/o Sh. Aan Singh @ Anand Singh
7. Sh. Aan Singh @ Anand Singh
S/o Sh. Dev Singh
All R/o H.No. 593/A/3,
Ward No. 3, Mehrauli, South West,
Delhi110030.
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.1 of 26
Also at :
Village Talli Bhaisadi,
PO Birkola, Birkola,
District Almora, Birkola,
Uttrakhand263622.
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Rajan Singh Negi @ Raju Singh Negi (Driver)
S/o Sh. Bhawan Singh,
R/o Village Talar District Almora,
Uttrakhand.
2. Smt. Nikki (Owner)
W/o Sh. Praveen Kumar,
R/o Radha Kishan Mandir,
735, Mahipalpur, New Delhi.
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Ansals Imperial Tower,
CBlock, Community Centre,
Naraina Vihar, New Delhi110028.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 15.12.2016
Date of filing of DAR : 06.10.2016
Date of framing of issues : 20.07.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 14.02.2022
Date of decision : 14.02.2022
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.2 of 26
AWARD/JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claim for compensation raised in this petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the deceased Sher Singh in a road accident that took place on 17.06.2016, at around 02.20 am, Near Orana Hotel Service Road, NH8, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR bearing No. 458/2016, under Sections 279/338/304A IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (South). The offending vehicle involved in this case is a scooty bearing registration No. DL8SBH0183, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1), owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3).
2. The facts of case, briefly stated, are that on the intervening night of 16/17.06.2016, the deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on the offending vehicle, i.e. scooty bearing registration No. DL8SBH0183. The said scooty was being driven by R1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and without following the traffic rules. The deceased Sher Singh requested R1 to drive the scooty slowly, but he did not listen to his requests. When they reached near Orana Hotel, Service Road, NH8, New Delhi, R1 lost control over the scooty due to which Sher Singh fell on the road and sustained injuries and became unconscious. He was removed to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi where he was declared as "brought dead" by the doctors. The scooty had also hit a pedestrian Rajender Singh (of MACP No. 601/16) before dashing MACP No. 600/16 Page no.3 of 26 into railing of the service road.
3. R1 has filed his written statement stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. That he was having a valid and effective driving license and the same is valid upto 21.07.2035. He has further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 97229273 valid from 27.03.2016 to 26.03.2017. R2 has not filed any reply either to the DAR or to the claim petition.
4. R3/Insurance Company had, however, filed on record their written statement stating that the vehicle in question was duly insured with them under the coverage of "Act only Policy" and not under "Comprehensive/Package Policy". It has further been stated that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the risk of pillion/occupants on the vehicle in question was not covered and no additional premium was taken from the insured/owner of the vehicle to cover the pillion rider. Hence, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.
5. That the present petition and MACP No. 601/16 of Rajender Singh were clubbed together and from pleadings of the parties, my Ld. Predecessor had framed the following issues on 20.07.2017 for disposal of the claim petitions:
1. Whether Sh. Sher Singh (deceased in MACP No. 600/16) and Rajendra Singh (injured in MACP No. 601/16) sustained fatal injuries/injuries in the accident which occurred on MACP No. 600/16 Page no.4 of 26 17.06.2016 at about 02.20 am, near Orana Hotel Service Road, NH8, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL8SBH0183 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/petitioners in both the petitions is/are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
6. It is necessary to mention here that the connected claim petition bearing MACP No. 601/16 qua the injured Rajendra Singh stands already disposed off vide order dated 20.09.2021.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for R3/Insurance Company. I have also carefully perused the entire record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
8. 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 MACP No. 600/16 Page no.5 of 26 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, (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others, 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9. Petitioners in support of their claim had examined on record total two witnesses. Wife of deceased Smt. Anju Devi @ Anju has stepped into the witness as PW1 and Sh. Rajendra Singh @ Rajan Singh, the other injured in the accident as PW2. It is the testimony of PW2 only which matters for determination of present issue as he is the victim/eye witness.
10. PW2 exhibited his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A where he categorically deposed regarding the factum as well as manner of the said accident. During his cross examination, he deposed that he was conscious after getting hurt from the offending vehicle in question. He further deposed that he knew the registration number of the offending vehicle. He volunteered that the police came after 5 to 7 minutes of the accident. He did not accompany the police to the hospital. His statement was recorded after two days from the date of accident. He could recognize the driver and also the pillion rider. He further stated that he was standing on the road at the time of accident and was going to the house of his brother and he stopped MACP No. 600/16 Page no.6 of 26 there for urinating purpose. He denied the suggestion that he was standing in the middle of the road. He further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence. Clearly, nothing material could be extracted out from him in his crossexamination 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.
11. Moreover, the oral testimony of petitioners is also found substantiated from records of the criminal case, which have been filed with the DAR. R1 has already been chargesheeted in the above criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 279/338/304A IPC for causing fatal injuries to Sher Singh by his rash and negligent driving of the said scooty and the same in itself is a strong circumstance to corroborate the testimony of petitioners on above aspects.
12. Apart from above, R1 was the best witness who could have challenged or controverted the testimony of this witness by deposing on record about manner of the said accident, but he has not done so. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal discussion, it is held that it stands proved that the above accident resulting into death of the deceased Sher Singh took place only due to rash and negligent driving MACP No. 600/16 Page no.7 of 26 of the above scooty bearing registration no. DL8SBH0183 and the said scooty at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
14. ISSUE NO. 2As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the above offending vehicle/R1 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
15. The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Anju Devi @ Anju in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A has claimed the age of her deceased husband as 37 years and 10 months at the relevant time of accident. The petitioner no. 1 has duly tendered on record copy of Aadhar card of her deceased husband as Ex. PW1/9 (OSR). In this document, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 15.08.1978 and hence, going by the same, age of deceased at the time of accident come to 37 years and around 10 months. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has MACP No. 600/16 Page no.8 of 26 also been approved in the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and also reiterated by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment dated 09.02.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 7176/2015 in the case of Sube Singh & Anr. Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors. and followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its various decisions, including the judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed in MACA No.94/18 in the case K.L. Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Abhishek & Ors., the multiplier of '15' is held applicable in the present case.
16. PW1 in her affidavit has claimed that her deceased husband was working with M/s Royal Residence, Plot No. 90, Sector43, Golf Court Road, Gurgaon, Haryana on the post of Cook and was getting salary of Rs. 20,500/ per month and Rs. 100/ per day towards daily expenses. She further deposed that the future prospects of her deceased husband were very bright as the deceased had an experience of more than 20 years of cooking, which would have increased his income manifolds. In order to prove the salary and employment of her deceased husband, PW1 has tendered on record original salary certificate dated 17.10.2016 as Ex. PW1/11, copy of appointment letter dated 25.11.2015 as Ex. PW1/12 (OSR), copy of letter dated 01.03.2016 issued by the employer of deceased regarding confirmation of services as Ex. PW1/13 (OSR) and copy of letter dated 15.03.2016 regarding revision of salary as Ex. PW1/14 (OSR). During cross examination of PW1, she deposed that my deceased husband was working MACP No. 600/16 Page no.9 of 26 in hotel since her marriage, but she cannot tell whether her deceased husband was working in the same hotel since her marriage or she had changed the employer. She further deposed that her deceased husband was working with M/s Royal Residence, Gurgaon for last 34 years. She has not filed any document showing any diploma/certificate of cooking. Further, the petitioners have not summoned the maker of above documents in order to prove the salary and employment of deceased. Hence, in the absence of their being any cogent evidence that he was getting a salary of Rs.20,500/, this has to be treated as a case of minimum wages. However, considering that the witness consistently maintained that her husband was a cook since last several years that part of the testimony can be relied upon and it is deemed fit that he be taken as skilled worker. Therefore, the minimum wages of skilled workers in Delhi have to be taken accordingly. The minimum wages for skilled workers in Delhi were Rs. 11,622/ per month at the relevant time of accident.
17. Now coming to the dependency aspect, the deceased was married and has left behind his widow, children and parents, hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi & Ors (Supra), one fifth (1/5th) of his above earnings is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
18. Further, in view of law laid in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the above amount of earnings is also liable to be added to MACP No. 600/16 Page no.10 of 26 earnings of deceased as future prospects since he was below 40 years of age at the relevant time of accident and his job/work was not permanent.
19. Thus, the loss of dependency qua deceased in the present case comes to Rs. 23,42,995/ (rounded off) (Rs.11,622/ X 4/5 X 140/100 X 15 X 12) and the said amount is being awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NONPECUNIARY HEADS
20. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are 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.
21. 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. 30933099 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 separately granted and has to be considered within the head 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of MACP No. 600/16 Page no.11 of 26 Rs.40,000/ each only towards 'loss of consortium', besides the above amount of Rs.30,000/ granted under the general and conventional heads towards 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
22. 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'.
23. Hence, the petitioners are being awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,41,000/ [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 7 + 10% of 40,000 X 7 = 3,08,000/)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
24. The petitioners are thus held entitled to a sum of Rs. 26,83,995/ (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five only) (Rs. 23,42,995/ + 3,41,000/) 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 MACP No. 600/16 Page no.12 of 26 above amount and calculations of compensation.
APPORTIONMENT
25. All the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Out of the awarded amount, 40% share is being awarded to P1 and 10% share each is being given to P2 to P7.
RELEASE
26. Out of amount awarded to P1, 70% 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.33601525580 being maintained at State Bank of India, Dhyari, Almora having IFSC Code No. SBIN0009943 and the remaining 30% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
27. Entire share of P2 to P5 shall be kept in FDRs for the period till they attain the age of 21 years or for marriage whichever is earlier.
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.13 of 26 However, the monthly interest accrued thereon shall also be released in the above bank account of their mother/P1 in order to meet their educational and other expenses and amounts of FDRs on maturity would be released in their saving bank accounts bearing Nos. 35745350878, 37315699780, 37235740014 and 37235740514, being maintained at State Bank of India, Dhyari, Almora having IFSC Code No. SBIN0009943.
28. Out of amount awarded to P6, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the form of FDR for a period of one year. The amount of FDR on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 34668487195, being maintained at State Bank of India, Dhyari, Almora having IFSC Code No. SBIN0009943 and the remaining 50% amount is directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
29. Out of amount awarded to P7, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the form of FDR for a period of one year. The amount of FDR on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account No. 34668616687, being maintained at State Bank of India, Dhyari, Almora having IFSC Code No. SBIN0009943 and the remaining 50% amount is directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
30. The above disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction MACP No. 600/16 Page no.14 of 26 of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their above shares.
31. The banks shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of the petitioners i.e. the above accounts of petitioners shall be individual accounts and not joint accounts.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
35. The witness R3W1 on behalf of Insurance Company had only exhibited the policy No. 97229273. He has not deposed anything about the premium collected by the Insurance Company inasmuch as he had not explained for what all the premium has been collected. More specifically there is no explanation as to why there is an additional premium of Rs. 50/ for PA owner driver CSI Rs. 1,00,000 under the head third party premium.
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.15 of 26 If this was a purely act only policy such premium could not have been charged. Further, the very terms and conditions exhibited by the said witness being Ex. R3W1/2 (colly) reads as under : LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES "1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of :
(a) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured."
36. It cannot be disputed that the insurance is a contract and the rights and liabilities of parties are covered by the expressed language of terms and conditions contained therein.
37. Now the words death of or bodily injury to any person or occupants carried in the insured vehicle cannot be ignored. More specifically, when they are written under the head liability to third party. The Insurance Company has consciously stated that any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle provided that such occupants are not carried for hire and reward and therefore, a pillion rider on the insured MACP No. 600/16 Page no.16 of 26 vehicle would fell under the category of such person/occupants carried in the insured vehicle. It is settled proposition of law that standard form of contract itself have to be read against the interest of makers if there is ambiguity in the terms of the contract.
38. Therefore, it is for the Insurance Company to prove its terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. I may further note that the heading of document is "Two Wheeler Policy Certificate of insurance cum schedule". The heading immediately above the terms and conditions is also relevant and reads as "Policy wording for Two Wheelers". The expression "including occupants carried in the insured vehicle" in clause 1(a) reproduced herein above can be construed accordingly as referring to two wheelers and since the language is slightly ambiguous, it has to be read against the Insurance Company. It can not be understood that reference is only with regard to four wheelers. This interpretation is also supported by the admission by the witness in the cross examination that "it is correct that nowhere it has been mentioned in the policy as well as terms and conditions filed today that pillion rider will not be covered under the said policy." The expression "Act only Policy" is not mentioned on the document Ex. R3W1/1, but the expression "Liability only" is mentioned. There is no reference to the statute. Further, what the law has provided is the minimum coverage to be provided under the law by the Insurance Company. Nothing stops the Insurance Company from offering more on the basis of premium collected or atleast no evidence to that effect has been placed on record. Therefore, the language of policy is militating against the arguments MACP No. 600/16 Page no.17 of 26 addressed by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company that the pillion rider is not covered by the policy. If this was the intention, then the Insurance company ought to have modified and corrected the language of the policy as words used in the contract cannot be ignored. This is the only possible interpretation when we consider the case of a two wheeler as it can only have two riders, i.e. driver and pillion rider. There is another way of looking at things, inasmuch as, Ld. Counsel for petitioner had alternatively asked that even in such cases, pay and recover principle is applicable as held in cases Imam Khan & Anr. Vs. Akram & Ors., 2018 (4) T.A.C. 407 (Raj.) ; Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kulwinder Kaur & Ors., 2020 (4) T.A.C. 518 (P&H) & National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors., 2017 (4) T.A.C. 201 (J & K).
39. However, unfortunately, the insured has not taken any such defence in the present matter and therefore, it is a fit case to apply pay and recover principle. Therefore, R3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance executed between them. Therefore, R3 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 eform 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, R3 fails MACP No. 600/16 Page no.18 of 26 to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event R3 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 R3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/.
40. R3 shall inform the claimants and their counsel through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amounts are being deposited so as to facilitate him to collect his cheques.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. The particulars of FormV 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. 600/16 Page no.19 of 26
1. Date of the accident 17.06.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by Not given I.O. to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by Not given I.O. 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 (DAR) by IO before Claims 06.10.2016 Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on Insurance 06.10.2016 Company
7. Date of service of DAR on 06.10.2016 claimant(s).
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 No Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of Insurance Not given Co.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his MACP No. 600/16 Page no.20 of 26 report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance 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?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of Legal offer not filed.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 14.02.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near Yes their 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 02.08.2018 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 27.02.2020 savings bank account near the place of their residence alongwith MACP No. 600/16 Page no.21 of 26 endorsement, PAN & Adhaar Cards?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the All R/o H.No. 593/A/3, Ward Claimant(s) No. 3, Mehrauli, South West, Delhi110030.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of P1= A/c No.33601525580, the claimant(s) and the address of the IFSC Code SBIN0009943, bank with IFSC Code. maintained with State Bank of India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. DYHPD4564E
P2 = A/c No.35745350878,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. IBSPK0564E
P3 = A/c No. 37315699780,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. BZZPC1298R
P4 = A/c No.37235740014,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. LYHPS4671R
P5 = A/c No.37235740514,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. IBSPK0562C
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.22 of 26
P6 = A/c No.34668487195,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. DYHPD4560A
P7 = A/c No. 34668616687,
IFSC Code SBIN0009943,
maintained with State Bank of
India, Dhyari, Almora.
PAN No. JFCPS6464E
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 Yes award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
44. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 08.07.2022.
Announced in the open court. (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) on 14.02.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 600/16 Page no.23 of 26 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 17.06.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sher Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 37 years and around 10 months
4. Occupation of the deceased : Skilled worker
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 11,622/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Anju Devi 40 years Wife
(ii) Kavita 18 years Daughter
(iii) Chandni 15 years Daughter
(iv) Rahul Singh 13 years Son
(v) Khashti 11 years Daughter
(vi) Smt. Vishani Devi 68 years Mother
(vii) Sh. Aan Singh @ 72 years Father Anand Singh Computation of Compensation Sr. Heads Amount Awarded No. 7 Income of the deceased (A) Rs.11,622/ 8 AddFuture Prospects (B) Rs.4,648.8/ 9 LessPersonal expenses of Rs.3254.16 the deceased (C) 10 Monthly loss of Rs.13,016.64 dependency [(A+B) - C = D] 11 Annual loss of Rs.1,56,199.68 dependency (D x 12) 12 Multiplier (E) 15 MACP No. 600/16 Page no.24 of 26 13 Total loss of dependency Rs.23,42,995/ (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.3,08,000/ consortium (I) 17 Compensation for loss of Rs.16,500.00 estate (J) 18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500.00 funeral expenses (K) 19 TOTAL Rs.26,83,995/ COMPENSATION (F + G + H + I + J+K =L) 20 RATE OF INTEREST 6% pa from date of filing of AWARDED DAR till deposit in 90 days and 9% after 90 days.
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 8,63,437.51
of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs.35,47,432.51 (rounded
interest (L+M) off to Rs. 35,48,000/)
23 Award amount released P1 = 30% of her share.
P2 = Nil
P3 = Nil
P4 = Nil
P5 = Nil
P6 = 50 % of her share.
P7 = 50% of his share.
24 Award amount kept in FDRs/ P1 = 70% of her share.
MACAD P2 = Entire share
P3 = Entire share
P4 = Entire share
P5 = Entire share
P6 = 50% of her share.
P7 = 50% of his share
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.25 of 26
25 Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to claimant(s)
26 Next date for compliance of 08.07.2022
the award
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
14.02.2022
MACP No. 600/16 Page no.26 of 26