Delhi District Court
Sona vs Bhupender on 28 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & Ors.
MACT No. 815/2017
1. Sona
W/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o 116, Afria, Bagdi and Sadhaka Patti
Khaira Village, Najafgarh, SouthWest Delhi110043.
2. Jitender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o E510, DJA Apartments, Plot No. 1A
Sector13, Dwarka
Delhi110078.
3. Roshni Devi
D/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o RZ208, East Krishna Vihar
Gopal Nagar Phase2, Najafgarh, Delhi110043.
4. Seema Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o WZ Block, Shakar Pur
Village Shakar Pur I Block
North West Delhi110034.
5. Meera Yadav
D/o Late Sh Prabhu Dayal
R/o 194, Ward No. 9, Taj Nagar
Gurgaon, Haryana.
6. Manju Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal
R/o Chiman Pura, PO Chamanpura
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 1 of 27
Sub District Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Bhupender (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raj Singh,
R/o H No. 74, Naveen Place
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. M/s Yash Travels (Owner)
Proprietor Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Pal
R/o 149, Behind Padarth Panna
Mitraon Extension, New Delhi.
3. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (Insurer)
303310, 3rd Floor
Kailash Building, K.G. Marg
Connaught Place, Delhi110001.
....Respondents
Date of institution : 13.07.2017
Date of concluding arguments : 24.10.2024
Date of decision : 28.10.2024
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter "DAR") was filed by the investigating officer SI Om Prakash in FIR number 158/2017 dated 05.05.2017 lodged at police station Chhawla under sections 279/304A IPC regarding the death of Sh. Prabhu Dayal in a road accident. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter "M V Act").
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 2 of 27 DAR
2. The petitioner no.1 Ms. Sona is the wife, the petitioner no. 2 Sh. Jitender Kumar is the son, and the petitioner no. 3 Ms. Roshni Devi, the petitioner no. 4 Ms. Seema Yadav, the petitioner no. 5 Ms. Meera Yadav and the petitioner no. 6 Ms. Manju Devi are the four daughters of the deceased Sh. Prabhu Dayal.
The respondent no. 1 Sh. Bhupender is the driver and the respondent no. 2 M/s Yash Travels (proprietor Sh. Ajay Kumar) is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. The respondent no. 3 Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the said vehicle.
3. As per the FIR, on 05.05.2017 at about 06.30 a.m., Sh. Prabhu Dayal had stepped out of his house to get a shave from a barber shop located on the main road. While Sh. Prabhu Dayal was crossing the road, a mini bus bearing registration number HR 99A BR(T) 0786, being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Najafgarh side and hit him. Resultantly, Sh. Prabhu Dayal fell down on the road and received injuries. The driver of the said mini bus stopped it on the roadside. The bus was being driven by the respondent no. 1, who was nabbed at the spot. Sh. Prabhu Dayal was taken to Vikas Hospital, Najafgarh where doctors declared him brought dead. The FIR was lodged by the eye witness Sh. Virender Kumar on the same day. The post mortem of deceased was conducted at RTRM hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi. Defence of the Respondents
4. Notice of the petition was served on the respondents.
The respondent no.1 has filed his reply wherein he has claimed that the accident had taken place not due to his fault but due to the negligence of the deceased. He further claimed that on the day of the accident he had a valid MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 3 of 27 driving license and that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3.
The respondent no. 2 did not file any reply.
The respondent no. 3, in its reply, while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured by it claimed that the said vehicle, on the day of the accident, did not have a valid permit which amounted to violation of the policy terms and conditions and sought either exoneration from liability or recovery rights. The respondent no. 3 also claimed, in its said reply, that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
Inquiry
5. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 10.01.2018, by my ld. predecessor, and the matter was fixed for petitioners' evidence:
(1) Whether Prabhu Dayal sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated on 05.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 99A BR(T) 0786 being driven by R1 Bhupender Singh, owned by R2 M/s Yash Travels and insured with R3 Future Generali India Insurance Co Ltd ? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
6. In order to prove their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses.
7. The petitioner no. 2 Sh. Jitender Kumar appeared as PW1 and his evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. PW1/A. MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 4 of 27 PW1 has inter alia deposed that at the time of accident his father was aged about 76 years and that his father was a farmer.
PW1 has relied upon following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 (colly) is the DAR.
Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of aadhar card of the deceased Sh. Prabhu Dayal. Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of his aadhar card. In his cross examination, the petitioner no. 2 has admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident. He further admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof regarding the agricultural activity done by his father.
8. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Virender as PW2 and his evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 deposed that on 05.05.2017 at about 6.30 a.m. he had gone for a walk on the outer road of the village and saw that while Sh. Prabhu Dayal was crossing the road, the offending vehicle bearing registration number HR 99A BRT 0786, being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from Najafgarh side and hit said Sh. Prabhu Dayal. He further deposed that due to the impact Sh. Prabhu Dayal fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the said offending vehicle. He then made a call to the police on 100 number and also nabbed the driver of the offending vehicle. After some time, the police arrived at the spot and the driver was handed over to the police. The police recorded his statement on the same day.
In his cross examination, PW2 admitted that he is the nephew of the deceased Sh. Prabhu Dayal. He denied that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased.
PW2 also proved the copy of his aadhar card as Ex. PW2/1.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 5 of 27
9. After completion of petitioners' evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence. The respondent no. 1 did not examine any witness. The respondent no. 3 examined two witnesses.
10. The respondent no. 3 examined R3W1 Sh. Amit Dabas, a summoned witness, working as Senior Assistant, Transport Department, Rajpura Road, Delhi, who produced the following record:
Ex. R3W1/A (colly three pages) is the record from State Transport Authority, Rajpura Road.
The first page is a report dated 09.03.2022 of the Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority addressed to this Tribunal stating that vehicle bearing registration no. DL1 PD 3145 was issued permit no. DL/51/CC/HPV/2017/354 on 29.06.2017 and the same was valid till 28.06.2022. It is further reported that the said vehicle did not have any valid permit, either temporary or permanent, on 05.05.2017.
The second & third pages are the copy (ies) of registration and permit details of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1PD 3145.
11. The respondent no. 3 also examined its authorized representative, Ms. Hreeshika Bhargav, as R3W2 and her evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. R3W2/A. She has deposed that the respondent no. 3 had insured the offending vehicle which was a commercial vehicle and required a permit. She has further deposed that the respondent no. 3 had got investigation conducted which revealed that the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective permit on the date of the accident. She has further deposed that the respondents no. 1 & 2 have failed to comply with the notice under order XII Rule 8 CPC to produce the permit of the offending vehicle issued by the counsel of respondent no. 3 to them. She has further deposed that MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 6 of 27 the respondent no. 3 must be exonerated from its liability as the offending vehicle had violated the conditions of the insurance policy.
She has relied upon following documents:
Ex. R3W2/1 is the computer generated copy of the insurance policy number V4997727 of the offending vehicle.
Ex. R3W2/2 is the investigation report (twelve pages collectively) of Bhullar Associates. It inter alia shows that the offending vehicle had temporary registration number HR 99A BR(T) 0786 and was later on assigned permanent registration number DL 1PD 3145.
Ex. R3W2/3 is the notice under order XII Rule 8 CPC by the counsel of respondent no. 3 addressed to the respondents no. 1 & 2. Ex. R3W2/4 is a postal receipt dated 06.07.2018 addressed to the respondent no. 1.
12. I have heard ld. counsels Sh. Manoj Kumar Rai for the petitioners and Sh. Dheeru Nigam for the respondent no.3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. None appeared on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2 to argue the case. I have also perused the record including the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent no. 3. My issuewise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether Prabhu Dayal sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated on 05.05.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 99A BR(T) 0786 being driven by R1 Bhupender Singh, owned by R2 M/s Yash Travels and insured with R3 Future Generali India Insurance Co Ltd ? OPP.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 7 of 27
13. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners. The petitioners have relied on the testimony of PW2 as well as the documentary evidence.
14. At this juncture, it will be worth to take a look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioners, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others(2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has held in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 8 of 27 assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors.2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE
269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 9 of 27 down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
18. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of chargesheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
19. The testimony of PW2, who is the eyewitness and the first informant, regarding the accident is consistent and has withstood the test of crossexamination.
The accident took place on 05.05.2017 at about 06.30 am and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 10.05 am and therefore, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. The respondent no. 1 was nabbed from the spot of accident. The arrest memo of the respondent no. 1 shows that he was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident on the same day, that is, 05.05.2017. On completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the respondent no. 1 under sections 279/304A IPC showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 99A BR(T) 0786.
From the registration certificates of the offending vehicle which are part of DAR and from the investigation report of Bhullar Associates (Ex.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 10 of 27 R3W2/2) it is clear that the offending vehicle had temporary registration number HR 99A BR(T) 0786 and was later on assigned permanent registration number DL 1PD 3145.
Even though the respondent no. 1, in his reply, has denied negligence on his part he has not led any evidence.
The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle dated 09.05.2017 shows that the left side mirror ("seesha") of the said vehicle had broken.
The medical evidence on record further provides credence to the DAR. The MLC no. 789 dated 05.05.2017 of Vikas hospital, Najafgarh records that Sh. Prabhu Dayal was brought dead at 06.45 am on that day. The post mortem report dated 05.05.2017 of RTRM hospital, Jaffarpur of Sh. Prabhu Dayal shows that the injuries suffered by him were ante mortem in nature and his death was caused due to head injury.
20. For the reasons recorded above and taking a holistic view, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration no. HR 99A BR(T) 0786 by respondent no.1 thereby causing the death of Sh. Prabhu Dayal.
Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
21. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 11 of 27 In view of finding on issue number 1, the petitioners are held entitled to compensation for the death of Sh. Prabhu Dayal.
22. On the question of quantum of compensation, the petitioners are relying on the deposition of PW1. The petitioners in their written submissions dated 07.03.2024 have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,05,500/ plus interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
23. The computation of just compensation is to be made in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. DTC(2009) 6 SCC 121 which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others(2017) 16 SCC 680.
Loss of Dependency
24. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra), three facts need to be established by the petitioners for assessing compensation in the case of death under the head of "Loss of Dependency" which are (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of dependents.
25. The petitioners have relied on the Aadhar card of the deceased (Ex. PW1 /2) as documentary proof of his age, which shows that his age at the time of accident was 76 years, and the same is not disputed by the respondent no. 3. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3, in their written submissions, have submitted that based on the age of the deceased, the MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 12 of 27 multiplier of 5 is applicable in the present case. Therefore, the multiplier of 5 is taken in calculating the loss of dependency.
26. The petitioners have not led any evidence regarding educational qualifications, employment and income of the deceased. In their respective written submissions, both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have submitted that since the deceased was a resident of Delhi, his income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable to Delhi. As per the said Act, the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour on 05.05.2017 (the date of accident) was Rs. 13,584/ per month. The same is taken to be the income of the deceased (A)
27. It is also not in dispute that since the deceased was 76 years of age, therefore, no sum has to be added towards future prospects (B).
28. The deceased is survived by 6 family members -- his wife, son, and four daughters. At the time of accident, all of the five children of the deceased were major and married. The petitioner no. 3 is the eldest amongst his children and she was 52 years of age at the time of the accident. The petitioner no. 6 is the youngest amongst his children and she was about 31 years of age at the time of the accident.
29. The main controversy in between the petitioners and respondent no. 3 is regarding the number of dependents.
The ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that the wife and the major children of the deceased were dependent on him. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. vs. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 and of the Hon'ble MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 13 of 27 High Court of Delhi in Ram Charan & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2022 SCC Online Del 5146.
Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 has argued that only the wife of the deceased can be considered as dependent on him.
30. In Birender (supra), the claimants had sought compensation for the death of their mother in a road accident. The deceased, at the time of accident, was 48 years of age and in government employment and was receiving gross salary of Rs. 23,123/ per month. Additionally, she was receiving Rs. 7,000/ per month towards pension, being widow of her deceased husband. There was evidence on record that the claimants, who were married, were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income in between Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 1.5 lacs per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on earning of their mother and in fact were staying with her.
31. In Ram Charan (supra), the deceased accident victim was survived by her husband, one major son and four married daughters. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 56 years of age and employed as a permanent/regular Safai Karamchari and it was claimed by the claimants that she was earning a gross salary of Rs. 19,095/- per month.
32. In the present case, no evidence has been led to show that at the time of accident, the deceased Sh. Prabhu Dayal was either employed or had any income. The present case is thus distinguishable from Birender (supra) and Ram Charan (supra) as the accident victims in these two cases were in permanent/regular government employment and receiving salary every month. Moreover, the accident victims in Birender (supra) and Ram MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 14 of 27 Charan (supra) were 48 and 56 years of age, respectively, whereas Sh. Prabhu Dayal was 76 years of age.
The petitioners have not brought anything on record to show that the major children (petitioners no. 26) of the deceased were not gainfully employed or were dependent on the deceased. In fact, the petitioner no. 2 has admitted, in his crossexamination, that he was running a coaching centre.
There is a distinction in between "right to apply for compensation"
and "entitlement to compensation". For the reasons discussed above, this Tribunal is of the view that in the present case, while the major children of the deceased have a "right to apply for compensation" they are not "entitled to compensation" for want of evidence. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, only the petitioner no. 1, being the widow of Sh. Prabhu Dayal, can be considered as dependent upon him and entitled to compensation.
Bearing in mind the advanced age of the deceased and having held that he had only one dependent, 50% of his income would be treated as his personal and living expenses.
Therefore, in the present case, Rs. 6,792/ [C=1/2 of (A+B)] has to be deducted on account of personal living and expenses.
33. The monthly loss of dependency (D) has to be taken as Rs. 6,792/ [D= A+BC]. Multiplying the same with 12 gives the annual loss of dependency (E) and the same amounts to Rs 81,504/ [E = D x 12].Further multiplying the annual loss of dependency with the multiplier (5) gives the loss of dependency (F) and the same amounts to Rs. 4,07,520/ [F = E x 5].
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 15 of 27 Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 4,07,520/ on account of loss of dependency.
Conventional Heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Consortium)
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows:
"59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Accordingly, petitioners are granted a sum of Rs. 18,000/ towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/ towards loss of estate.
35. There is also dispute in between the petitioners and the respondent no. 3 regarding the quantum of consortium that is to be paid to the petitioners.
The Ld. counsel for petitioners has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Satinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 111 SCC 780 wherein consortium of Rs. 40,000/ each was paid to the spouse and the three children of the deceased.
Per contra, the insurance company has relied on order dated 27.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos . 24102412 /2023 to argue that the petitioners are entitled to a consortium of Rs. 44,000/ in total.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 16 of 27 In view of this Tribunal, since Satinder Kaur (supra) is a decision of a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court the same shall prevail over Bhagat Singh Rawat (supra) which is a decision of two Hon'ble Judges of the said Court .
Therefore, the petitioners are granted Rs. 2,88,000/ (Rs. 48,000/ each to the six petitioners) for loss of consortium.
36. Adding the loss of dependency to the conventional heads, gives the total award amount to Rs. 7,31,520/.
Issue No. 3: Relief
37. The respondents no. 1 & 2, being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioners.
The offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 99A BR(T) 0786 was insured with the respondent no. 3 against third party risks. The respondent no. 3 has claimed that the offending vehicle lacked valid permit on the day of the accident which amounted to violation of the policy terms and conditions and has sought either exoneration from liability or recovery rights.
The respondent no. 1, in his reply, has not even claimed that the offending vehicle had a valid permit on the day of the accident. The respondent no. 2 has neither filed reply nor led any evidence.
On the other hand, the respondent no. 3 has led documentary evidence (Ex. R3W1/A and Ex. R3W2/2) showing that the offending vehicle was issued permit no. DL/51/CC/HPV/2017/354 which was valid from 29.06.2017 onwards and that it did not have any valid permit on the MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 17 of 27 day of the accident. The evidence led by respondent no. 3 has gone un rebutted.
In view of this Tribunal, the evidence led by respondent no. 3 is credible and sufficient to prove that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit on the day of the accident.
Therefore, the respondent no. 3 (Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd.) shall pay the award amount with interest to the petitioners and in turn recover the same from the respondent no. 1 (Sh. Bhupender/driver) and respondent no. 2 (M/s Yash Travels proprietor Sh. Ajay Kumar), jointly and severally.
Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
38. In view of findings on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,31,520/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition that is, 13.07.2017 till the date of compliance that is, 27.11.2024. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. 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 award amount.
Apportionment
39. The petitioners no. 2 to 6 have stated on oath that their share in the award amount, if any, be given to their mother, petitioner no. 1. In view of their statements, the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to the entire award amount.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 18 of 27 Release
40. As per the provisions of section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no.3/Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner no. 1 and her counsel.
41. The statement of the petitioner no. 1 regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The petitioner no. 1 has provided the details of her Saving Bank Account MACT Claims (hereafter "MACT account") and the same is as follows:
Name Bank Details
Ms. Sona A/c Type: Savings Bank Account MACT Claims
A/c No. : 42149443135 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
IFSC Code: SBIN0011566
42. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021. As per this scheme, the compensation is to be released to the petitioner(s) in a phased manner.
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 19 of 27
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
44. Keeping in view that the petitioner no. 1 is about 80 years of age, twenty percent (20%) of the award amount be immediately released to her in her aforesaid MACT account no. 42149443135 and the same can be withdrawn by her through withdrawal form.
The remaining eighty percent (80%) of the award amount be kept in the form of 48 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amount, for periods ranging from 1 to 48 months in succession, as per the aforesaid MACAD scheme. The amount of FDRs on maturity be released to the petitioner no. 1 in her MACT account no. 42149443135.
The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to comply accordingly.
The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the aforesaid MACT account or fixed deposit account(s) of the petitioner no.1.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR(s) number, FDR(s)amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnis MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 20 of 27 hed by bank to the petitioner no. 1.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR(s) without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner no. 1 for her aforesaid MACT account.
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 aforesaid MACT account of the petitioner no. 1 so that no debit card be issued in respect of the said account of the petitioner no. 1 from any other branch of the bank.
45. The FormXV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 05.05.2017
2. Name of deceased: Shri Prabhu Dayal
3. Age of the deceased: 76 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the deceased: Farmer
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 13,584/ p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Present Age Relation
(i) Sona 80 yrs Wife
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 21 of 27
(ii) Jitender Kumar 45 yrs Son
(iii) Roshni Devi 59 yrs Daughter
(iv) Seema Yadav 52 yrs Daughter
(v) Meera Yadav 43 yrs Daughter
(vi) Manju Yadav 38 yrs Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 13,584/
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Zero
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 6,792/ deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 6,792/ [D= (A+B) - C ]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 81,504/ [E= Dx12] 12. Multiplier 5
13. Total loss of dependency Rs. 4,07,520/ [F=Ex16]
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,000/ to each of the consortium (I) petitioners i.e. Rs.2,88,000/
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,000/ (J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 7,31,520/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 22 of 27
20. RATE OF INTEREST Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum AWARDED from the date of institution of the petition till the date of compliance.
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 4,00,050/ of decision (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 11,31,570/ up to the date of decision (L+M)
23. Award amount released 20%
24. Award amount kept in FDRs 80% in 48 equal monthly FDRs
25. Mode of disbursement of the Bank Transfer award amount to the claimant
(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 27.11.2024 award.
46. The FormXVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
Form XVII
1. Date of the accident 05.05.2017
2. Date of filing of Form I First Not Known Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of FormIII from Not Known the Driver
5. Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Known MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 23 of 27 owner
6. Date of filing of the FormV Not Known Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of FormVIA and Not Known Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of FormVII 13.07.2017 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 04.07.2017 Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No. the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Not Applicable.
of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 28.10.2024
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 24 of 27
16. Date of order by which 16.05.2018 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) 05.10.2023 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of Petitioner no. 1 (Ms. Sona) R/o the petitioner(s) 116, Afria, Bagdi and Sadhaka Patti, Khaira Village, Najafgarh, SouthWest Delhi110043.
Petitioner no. 2 (Sh. Jitender Kumar) R/o E510, DJA Apartments, Plot No. 1A, Sector 13, Dwarka, Delhi 110078.
Petitioner no. 3 (Roshni Devi) R/o RZ208, East Krishna Vihar, Gopal Nagar Phase2, Najafgarh, Delhi 110043.
Petitioner no. 4 (Seema Yadav) R/o WZ Block, Shakar Pur, Village Shakar Pur I Block, North West Delhi110034.
Petitioner no. 5(Meera Yadav) MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 25 of 27 R/o 194, Ward No. 9, Taj Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Petitioner no. 6(Manju Yadav) R/o Chiman Pura, PO Chamanpura, Sub District Beri, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yes.
bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
47. Dasti copy of award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them via email.
48. Attested copy of award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi for information/ compliance.
49. Copy of award be also sent to the concerned ld. Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
50. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
51. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 20.01.2025 for compliance report.
52. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 26 of 27 formalities.
Digitally signed by SUDEEP SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
RAJ Date:
2024.10.28
SAINI 16:35:12
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 28.10.2024 POMACT02, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 815/2017 Sona & Ors. Vs. Bhupender & ors. Page no. 27 of 27