Delhi District Court
Smt. Lakhpati (Widow Of Deceased) vs Mohd. Rizwan on 27 September, 2018
MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5843/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 497/15)
1. Smt. Lakhpati (Widow of deceased)
Widow of Late Sh. Deepak,
2. Ms. Seema (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Deepak,
3. Arjun (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Deepak,
4. Master Arun (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Deepak,
Through his mother/natural guardian
namely Ms. Lakhpati,
All R/o B531, Behind ITI,
Jhuggi Block K,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mohd. Rizwan,
S/o Sh. Sahabuddin,
R/o H.No. 130, Block No. 1,
VPO Akeda, PS. Nuh,
District Mewat,
Haryana (Driver)
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 1 of 22
MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018
2. Sh. Rajesh Sharma,
S/o Sh. Amar Nath Sharma,
R/o CV537, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
Delhi - 110042 (Registered owner)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Scope Minar Building,
Shakarpur, Delhi(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 03.10.2015
Date of Arguments : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 27.09.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. A.K. Dhama, adv for petitioners/Lrs of deceased.
None for respondents no. 1 & 2.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, adv for respondent no. 3.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioners are the legal heirs i.e. widow and children of deceased Deepak who had sustained fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 29.05.2015 at about 2.00 pm near BG254, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, involving Truck Bearing registration no. HR55M8115 (alleged offending vehicle).
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 2 of 22MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018
2. The petitioners have filed the present claim petition U/s 166/140 M.V Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/ alongwith interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, on the averments that on 29.05.15 at about 2:00 pm, Deepak (since expired) was setting aside the engine of truck bearing registration no. HR55M8115 while laying down underneath front part of the aforesaid truck alongwith requisite tools. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 1 in most rash and negligent manner; without observing proper lookouts and without caring for deceased who was laying down underneath it, abruptly switched ON the ignition of said offending truck and drove it away at an exorbitantly high speed. As a result thereof, Deepak sustained fatal injuries. He was removed to BSA Hospital, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 5932/15. On the same day during the course of treatment, Deepak died. Postmortem on the body of Deepak was got conducted vide PM Report No. 328/15. FIR No. 650/15 u/s. 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to said accident. It is claimed that said Truck No. HR55M8115 was owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with National Insurance Co Ltd/respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. It may be noted here that the police had also filed Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter called DAR) on 18.07.2016 corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 650/15 U/s 279/304A IPC registered at PS. Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 3 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 S.P. Badli with regard to the accident in question. Same was ordered to be merged with claim petition vide order dated 18.07.16.
4. In their joint WS, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have claimed that the respondent no. 1 has not caused any such accident and he had been falsely implicated by the police. However, they have claimed that vehicle no. HR55M8115 was duly insured on the date of accident. On merits, they have simply denied the averments made in the claim petition and have prayed for its dismissal.
5. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V. Act. However, it has admitted that the aforesaid Truck was insured with it in the name of Sh. Rajesh Sharma(R2,) vide policy no. 421700/31/14/6300004951, having validity from 15.03.15 to 14.03.16. It has claimed that as per DL verification report filed with DAR, DL of respondent no. 1 would be treated as cancelled as it was not in the form of smart card. It has further claimed that the respondent no.1 was the resident of Mewat, Haryana and there was no document regarding his residence of Mewat. It has also claimed that DL of respondent no. 1 which was allegedly issued from Nagaland, had been provided to IO by him only on 30.06.15 i.e. after more than one month of the accident. Hence, said DL was not in existence at the time of accident and was false and procured document. It has claimed that even otherwise, said DL Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 4 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 already stood cancelled as per the report of Licencing Authority. On merits, the averments made in the claim petition have been simply denied for want of knowledge with prayer for dismissal thereof.
6. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.11.2016 :
1) Whether deceased Deepak had suffered fatal injuries in road accident on 29.05.15 at about 2 pm near BG 254, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Md. Rizwan/respondent no. 1 who was driving truck bearing registration no.
HR55M8115, owned by Sh. Rajesh Sharma/respondent on. 2 and insured with National Insurance Co./respondent no. 3?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners/Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
7. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Lakhpati (widow of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Jai Govind (alleged eye witness). They closed their evidence on 31.05.2017 through their counsel. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 5 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 by respondents no. 1 & 2. However, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined only one witness i.e. Sh. B.S. Yadav, Assistant, National Insurance Company Limited, as R3W1.
8. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 13.04.2018 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
9. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Jai Govind (alleged eyewitness) is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that on 29.05.2015 at about 2:00 pm, he alongwith deceased Deepak were setting aside the engine of truck bearing registration no. HR55M8115, while laying down underneath the front part of the aforesaid truck alongwith requisite tools. In the meantime, its driver/respondent no. 1, in most rash and negligent manner; without observing proper lookouts and without caring for the deceased Deepak who was lying underneath it, abruptly switched ON the ignition of the said truck and drove it away at exorbitantly high speed. Consequently, right side wheel of the aforesaid truck ran over Deepak and he sustained fatal Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 6 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 injuries. He deposed that he had come out from underneath the aforesaid truck before the said accident took place and Deepak alone kept on working underneath the aforesaid truck. He categorically deposed that accident in question had occurred solely due to rash, reckless and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR55M8115 on the part of its driver/Mohd. Rizwan who failed to exercise due care and caution while driving the said vehicle. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, he deposed that on the date of accident, he was working with deceased Deepak jointly. He was not acquainted with driver Mohd. Rizwan prior to the accident in question. He further deposed that Deepak did not have any enmity with driver of the offending truck. He deposed that he alongwith Deepak were working underneath the truck for about 2 hours. He admitted that when he alongwith Deepak were working on the offending truck, the driver was standing besides the truck. He further deposed that when the accident took place, the work on the offending truck was going on. He denied the suggestion that he had started the vehicle/truck. He deposed that the truck proceeded 1 - 1 ½ feet ahead at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that driver Mohd. Rizwan had helped to take out deceased Deepak from underneath the truck and not the persons acquainted to him had helped. He admitted that driver Rizwan accompanied the deceased Deepak while being removed to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that driver Mohd. Rizwan was told by him to start the truck to check the working of engine. During his crossexamination on behalf of Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 7 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 respondent no. 3, he deposed that he had no documentary proof to show that he was working as Truck Mechanic. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to negligence and fault of deceased himself.
10. The careful perusal of testimony of PW2 would go to show that respondents were not able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination. The said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination and nothing could be elicited during his crossexamination from their side so as to discredit his testimony made on Oath.
11. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 650/15 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly), would show that same was registered on 29.05.15 on the basis of DD Entry No. 38A dt. 29.05.15 with regard to accident call received in PS. S.P. Badli on 29.05.15. The contents of said FIR would show that Truck bearing registration no. HR55M8115 was found lying at the spot when SI Vkram had visited the spot on receipt of said DD No. 38A.
12. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid truck, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place.
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 8 of 22MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 However, he preferred not to enter into the witness box and to stay away from the proceedings in the present case during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR46C1428 by him.
13. As noted above, FIR No. 650/15 (supra) was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet (which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) would show that FIR was registered on 29.05.2015 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of Truck No. HR55M8115 at the instance of petitioners. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC would further show that Investigating Agency concluded after completion of the investigation that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR55M8115 by its driver namely Mohd. Rizwan i.e. R1 herein.
14. Copy of PM Report (which is part DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Deepak, would show that his cause of death was hemorrhagic shock consequent upon injury to the pelvis and lower limbs. All injuries were ante mortem, fresh in nature, caused by blunt force/surface impact and could be Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 9 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 sustained in road traffic accident. The injuries as noted in the relevant column with regard to external injuries, as mentioned therein, are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents.
15. The offending Truck is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of its seizure memo dated 29.05.15 (date of accident being 29.05.15)(which is also part of DAR).
16. Moreover, in response to notice U/s 133 M.V Act (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) served upon respondent no. 2 i.e. regd owner of Truck bearing no. HR55M8115, he gave written reply that said vehicle was being driven by Mohd. Rizwan (R1) on 29.05.15. Same would also corroborate the testimony of PW2 to the extent that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 at the time of accident.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Deepak had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 29.05.2015 at about 2.00 pm near BG254, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, due to rash and Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 10 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR55M8115 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 218. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are the widow and children of deceased. PW1 Smt. Lakhpati (widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that Deepak was 43 years of age; he was working as Truck Mechanic at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs. 13,000/ per month at the time of accident. She has relied upon copy of DAR(Ex. PW1/1colly).
20. During her cross examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, she deposed that there was no earning member in their family after the death of her husband. She further deposed that she was meeting her day to day expenses by taking help from her relatives. She further deposed that all Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 11 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 her three children are studying. During her crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3, she deposed that she did not have any documentary proof regarding income of her deceased husband. Her deceased husband did not have any academic certificate but he was motor mechanic. She denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not working as truck mechanic or that he was unemployed. She deposed that her deceased husband used to run his own mechanic shop and he used to install his shop in open space alongwith his tools. She admitted that she had no documentary proof of her deceased husband's shop/occupation. She denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not doing any mechanical work.
21. Counsel for petitioners fairly conceded during the course of arguments that for want of cogent evidence being led with regard to monthly income of deceased, his monthly income should be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Lakhpati has admitted during her cross examination that she had no document to show that her deceased husband was earning Rs. 13,000/per month at the time of accident. Mere bald statement made by PW1 in this regard, cannot be accepted under the law. No document concerning educational qualification of deceased has been placed on record by the petitioners. For want of any definite evidence Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 12 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 regarding monthly income of deceased being led by the petitioners, his monthly income has to be assessed as that of an unskilled worker as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable as on 29.05.15, were Rs. 9,048/ per month.
22. In copy of Aadhaar Card (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of deceased Deepak, year of his birth is mentioned as 1972. In copy of Ration Card also, his year of birth is mentioned as 1972. The date of accident is 29.05.15. The said documents remained unchallanged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents during the course of inquiry. In view of said documents, age of deceased would come out to somewhere between 4243 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
23. Keeping in view the fact that there were four claimants who were financially dependent upon income of deceased at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of 1/4th as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 25% towards element of future prospect in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged between Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 13 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 4243 years of age at the time of accident), in view of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 14,25,060/ (Rs. 9,048/ X 3/4 X 125/100 X 12 X 14). Hence, a sum of Rs. 14,25,060/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
25. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned Supra a sum of Rs.
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 14 of 22MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Lakhpati (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,25,060/
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 14,95,060/ Rounded Off to Rs. 14,95,500/
27. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance company sought to avoid the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation amount on the ground that there was no valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 of the category of offending vehicle i.e. Truck as on the date of accident. For this purpose, he heavily relied upon the Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 15 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 testimony of R3W1 Sh. B.S. Yadav, Assistant of National Insurance Company Ltd examined on behalf of insurance company. He contended that as per relevant circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland, all driving licences issued by said Licensing Authority, were required to be got converted into smart cards upto 01.12.2014 but respondent no.1 whose DL is also issued from Licensing Authority, Tuensange, Nagaland, did not get his DL converted into smart card. Hence, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights from respondents no. 1 & 2.
28. R3W1 deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. R3W1/1) that offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. HR55M8115 was insured with their insurance company. He further deposed that despite being put to notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC, driver and registered owner failed to produce valid and effective DL in favour of R1. He relied upon office copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC issued to respondents no. 1 & 2 and postal receipts regarding dispatch of said notice as Ex. R3W1/A to Ex. R3W1/C1 respectively and copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/D. He further deposed that R1 had produced his DL allegedly issued by DTO, Nagaland and as per Circular No. 23/MV/2007(PTKohima) dated 01.08.14 issued by Transport Commissioner, Kohima, smart card had been introduced and issuance of driving licence on booklet, had been discontinued. He further deposed that any DL purported to have been issued by any Authority on booklet form after 30.10.09 in Nagaland, is not genuine. Hence, DL, copy of which is Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 16 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 exhibited as Ex. R3W1/E, is false and fabricated document. He also exhibited copy of DL in favour of R1 as Ex. R3W1/F. He has not been crossexamined at all on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, whereas the petitioners preferred not to crossexamine this witness.
29. As regards the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of insurance company that there was no valid and effective DL in favour of R1 to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident, the heavy reliance placed by counsel for insurance company on abovenoted Circular, is totally misplaced inasmuchas said Circular simply provides that DL Holders were required to get their driving licences converted into Smart Cards prior to 1 st December 2014. However, it does not mean that DL in favour of respondent no. 1 would automatically became invalid or ineffective merely because he could not get the same converted into smart card. This is more so when respondent no. 1 is shown to be permanent resident of District Mewat, Haryana and he happened to be working for gain for quite some time in State of Nagaland during the relevant period and this is how, he had got DL No. 44842/TV/T/2010 issued from the office of DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland on 15.03.10 when even verification report(Ex. R3W1/E) filed by insurance company itself, shows that said DL was valid upto 22.12.16. No evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by insurance company to show that respondent no. 1 continued to work for gain in State of Nagaland either till 01.12.14 uptill which date he was required to get his DL converted into Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 17 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 Smart Card as per relevant circular referred to above or even thereafter. Thus, the directions issued vide said Circular, would have no application to the facts of present case. Consequently, non conversion of DL into Smart Card on the part of respondent no. 1, does not constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured. Hence, insurance company is not entitled to recovery rights on this ground. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, the respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 14,95,500/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 03.10.15 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
31. Statement of petitioners in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded on 13.04.2018. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 18 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Lakhpati shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 Ms. Seema shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 3 Sh. Arjun shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,95,500/ (Rupees Two Lacs Ninety Five Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 4 Arun shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
32. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 75,000/ (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 33280100028886 with Bank of Baroda, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
33. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 2 namely Ms. Seema shall be kept in the form of FDR and same shall be released to her at the time of her marriage or within two years, whichever is earlier. It is ordered accordingly.
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 19 of 22MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018
34. Out of share amount of petitioners no. 3 & 4, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ each (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to them through their saving bank accounts no. 32056795186 (of Arjun) with State Bank of India, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, having Branch Code 4840 and no. 125000101002171 (of Arun) with Corporation Bank, Model Town III, Delhi, having IFSC Code CORP0001250 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
35. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 20 of 22MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
36. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimants were asked as to whether they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. They stated on oath that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished Forms No. 15G on record.
37. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts of claimants in the aforesaid saving bank account mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimants. Copy of this award be given dasti alongwith Forms no. 15G furnished by claimants (after retaining their copies on record) to counsel for insurance company. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 21 of 22 MACP No. 5843/16 (Old MACP No. 497/15) FIR No. 650/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 27.09.2018 Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IVA and Form V in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 27.09.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Smt. Lakhpati & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan & Ors. . Page 22 of 22