Delhi District Court
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. vs . Sandeep Kumar & Anr. Mact No. 64/15 on 26 April, 2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTHEAST DISTT. : KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
Presiding Officer: ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL: DHJS
Additional District & Sessions Judge: Delhi
MACT No. 64/15 FIR No. 413/15
ID No. 14527/15 U/s. 279/338/304A IPC
P.S. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad
In the matter of:
1. Nasreen Zahan W/o. Nasir Ali(MOTHERAged 28 years)
2. Nasir Ali S/o. Amir Ahmad (FATHERAged 32 years)
Both R/o. : H. NO. A1026, Gali No. 10, Part1,
Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi 110 094
Through:
Mr. Sudesh Kumar, Adv. and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. (Mobile No. 9868363638).
Chamber No. 594, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - 110 054.
( details given in compliance with Clause 27 of
Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure) ....... Claimants
Versus
1. Sandeep Kumar (DRIVER)
S/o. Sh. Rajender Kumar
R/o. H. NO. 52, Village Chamrod Chhati,
Mawana, Distt. Meerut, U.P.
(DIED ON 31.05.2016 AS PER DEATH CERTIFICATE)
2. Uttrakhand Transport Corporation, (REGD. OWNER)
Through its Secretary, 117, Indra Nagar
Dehradun, Uttrakhand.
......... Defendants
i) Date of institution of Claim Petition : 08.05.2015
ii) Date when reserved for award : 15.04.2017
iii) Date of award : 26.04.2017.
CLAIM PETITION U/S. 166 & 140 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
Page No. 1 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
A W A R D
1.1 CONVERSION OF CLAIM PETITON U/S. 163A OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988 TO CLAIM PETITION U/S. 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988.
Originally claimants filed claim petition u/s. 163A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
However vide order dated 05.04.2017 claimants were allowed to change the claim
petition as the one filed u/s. 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Order dated
05.04.2017 reads as under:
"O R D E R
05.04.2017
1. This order shall dispose off an application moved by claimants on
25.02.2017 U/s. 151 CPC to convert the claim petition from claim petition U/s.
163A to claim petition U/s. 166 & 140 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988. Vide
order dated 18.03.2017 ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 submitted that he did not
wish to file any formal reply to the said application. Defendant no. 1 has already
expired.
2. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. for claimants and Mr. C. P. Singh,
Adv. for defendant no. 2 and perused the material available on judicial file. Ld.
Counsel for claimants/applicants relied upon case laws reported as (i) Josphine
James Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2013 (iv) T.A.C. 22(SC); (ii)
Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram II(2016) ACC 896(Del.); (iii) Bhupati Vs.
Parmeela & Ors. Vs. Suprientendant of Police, Vizianagaram I (2011) ACC 812
(DB) & (iv) Tamilnadu State Trans. Cropn. Vs. Shankar Sahani & Ors. II
(2012) ACC 854 (DB).
3. I have perused the claim petition originally filed U/s 163A Motor
Vehicles Act,1988. As per averments made in said petition necessary ingredients
for application of U/s. 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are made out. It is
also noteworthy that in the claim petition originally filed U/s 163A Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and now filed as claim petition U/s. 166 & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 1988 alongwith application in hand, all the
averments/contents are same and the only difference is the difference of section
(s) under the claim petitions have been filed. In my considered opinion, being
guided by case laws relied upon by ld. counsel for claimants/applicants
application in hand deserves to be allowed and no prejudice on merits is likely to
be caused to the defendants keeping in view the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, application is hereby allowed".
Page No. 2 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
1.2 CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS AS PLEADED IN CLAIM PETITION
Claimants, being LRs/parents of deceased Baby Aalia, aged about 1 ½ years,
have filed this claim petition u/s. 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the
averments on 01.04.2015 at about 12:00 noon., deceased Baby Aalia alongwith her
mother was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle bearing no. DL 5SL 1759 and
was going towards Hapur, U.P. from Delhi. The motorcycle was being driven by her
father namely Nasir Ali at normal speed and on his correct portion of the road while
observing the traffic rules. When they reached opposite New Bus Stand, Ghaziabad,
suddenly a Uttrakhand Roadways bus bearing no. UK 07PA 0838, which was being
driven by its driver/defendant no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and
without blowing any horn in contravention of the traffic rules, came in a zig zag
manner and hit motorcycle alongwith deceased and her mother with a great force.
On account of this sudden and forceful impact the deceased alongwith motorcyclist
and her mother fell down on the road and deceased sustained grievous fatal injuries.
After the accident deceased was removed to Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P. and,
thereafter, the deceased was immediately referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
and deceased died on the way to Hospital. The accident occurred due to negligence of
respondent no. 1. FIR No. 413/15, U/s. 279/338/304A IPC was recorded at P.S. Sihani
Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P. and post mortem was conducted at the Distt. Govt. Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P. Claimants have claimed Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation from the defendants with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2.1 STAND TAKEN BY DEFENDANTS NO. 1 IN HIS WS.
Nasir Ali (claimant no. 2) was plying the motorcycle bearing no. DL 5SL 1759 by not following the traffic rules and at high and uncontrolled speed as well as in Page No. 3 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 negligent manner. This was the cause of accident. The defendant no. 1 was plying the bus at that time just outside/near the New Bus Stand, Ghaziabd, U.P. at his correct hand (i.e left hand side of the road) at a very nominal and controlled speed as the big bus cannot be plied at high speed there due to constant (always) rush on the road. It was driver of motorcycle who was plying the bike rashly, negligently and at uncontrolled speed as well as by overtaking the vehicles and in this manner motorcycle suddenly dashed against the bus. Defendant no. 1 is having a valid and effective DL bearing no. UP 15 20050007026 valid from 05.08.2005 to 05.08.2017.
2.2 STAND TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NO. 2 IN THE WS.
On 01.04.2015 defendant no. 1 was plying the bus bearing no. UK 07PA 0838(Haridwar Depot) from Haridwar to Delhi by abiding all rules and regulations of traffic and by taking all major and minor precautions at normal speed. When the bus reached at Meerut 'More', Ghaziabad at about 2:00 p.m., the driver was turning the bus at slow speed all of a sudden a motorcyclist bearing its registration no. DL 5SL 1759 came at a high speed from driver side of the bus in a rash and negligent manner and by ignoring rules and regulations of the traffic. The motorcyclist lost his control and lost his balance, as a result of which he fell down on the road and touched the bus. Consequently one child slipped from the hands of the pillion rider. Accident took place only due to the negligence of the motorcyclist and not that of the defendants. The defendants have been falsely implicated in this case by claimants only to harass and humiliate and to get false compensation from the defendants.
3. ISSUES Vide order dated 01.08.2015 following issues were framed:
(i) Whether deceased Baby Aalia died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 01.04.2015 at about 12:00 p.m. (noon) at opposite New Bus Stand Ghaziabad, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Page No. 4 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UK 07 PA 0838 by respondent no.1? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
4. EVIDENCE 4.1 Claimant no. 2 appeared in witness box as PW 1 Nasir Ali. PE was closed on 26.07.2016 by ld. counsel for claimants.
4.2 Defendant no. 2 examined R2W1 Kulbeer Singh and evidence of defendant no. 2 was closed on 28.01.2017 by ld. counsel for defendant no. 2.
5. STATEMENTS OF CLAIMANTS UNDER CLAUSE 26 OF MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE.
On 15.04.2017 statements of claimants were recorded under clause 26 of MCTAP.
6. ARGUMENTS I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. for claimants and Mr. C. P. Singh, Adv. for defendant no. 2. Vide order dated 10.04.2017 ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 submitted that defendant no. 1 has expired and photocopy of death certificate was filed. I have gone through the material available on judicial file carefully.
7. My issuewise findings are as under : 7.1 ISSUE No.1 Whether deceased Baby Aalia died on account of injuries sustained in accident taking place on 01.04.2015 at about 12:00 p.m. (noon) at opposite New Bus Stand Ghaziabad, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UK 07 PA 0838 by respondnet no.1? OPP Page No. 5 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 Claimant no. 2 has appeared in the witness box as PW 1 Nasir Ali and has tendered his examination in chief vide evidence affidavit Ex. PW 1/A which contains depositions regarding the manner of happening of the accident in terms of averments made in the claim petition. In his cross examination by ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 he has been made to depose as under:
"xxxxx by Sh. C. P. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2.
I left my house at about 1111:30 AM. I reached at the place of accident at about 1212:30 PM. It is correct that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was taking turn towards Delhi from Meerut Morh, Ghaziabad. It is wrong to suggest that the offending vehicle was in slow speed and correct left side of the road. It is wrong to suggest that my motorcycle was driven rashly and negligently. After the accident police came at the spot and recorded my statement there. After 15 days police again recorded my statement at my house. It is wrong to suggest that this accident was caused due to my rash and negligent driving of motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
Xxxxx by respondent no. 1.
Nil. Opportunity given. "
Defendant no. 2 has also examined one Mr. Kulbeer Singh as R2W1 by filing his examination in chief by way of evidence affidavit Ex. R2W1/1, which contains depositions regarding the manner/happening of accident as per averments made by defendant no. 2 in its WS. In his cross examination R2W1 Mr. Kulbeer Singh has deposed as under:
"xxxxxx by Sh. Sanjiv Singh, ld. Counsel for petitioner.
I have not filed any document to show that I was the conductor of the bus bearing no. UK 07PA 0838 on the date of accident i.e 01.04.2015. I have brought my Aadhar card and ID proof of my department. It is wrong to suggest that I was not the conductor of bus bearing no. UK 07PA 0838 on the date of accident. I have not filed any written complaint regarding the false implication of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident before any higher authority. Vol. I have filed a complaint to my department with regard to this accident but today I have not brought the said complaint. It is wrong to suggest that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver. At the time of accident I was sitting on my seat which is near the exit gate. The driver side of the bus had collided with the motorcycle."
Page No. 6 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
What is to be noted is that PW 1 Mr. Nasir Ali is himself victim/eye witness of the accident and complete stand(s) taken by defendants no. 1 & 2 in their respective WSs has not even been suggested to PW 1 Nasir Ali in his crossexamination. Nothing has been brought on record by defendant no. 2 to show that R2W1 Mr. Kulbeer Singh was in fact the conductor of bus no. UK 07PA 0838 on the date of accident i.e 01.04.2015. It is noted that as per certified copies of criminal record Ex. PW 1/1 (colly 15 sheets) defendant no. 1 has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable u/s. 279/338/304 A IPC. R2W1 in his cross examination has deposed that he has not filed any written complaint regarding false implication of the offending vehicle in the accident in question before any higher authority. This witness has volunteered that he has filed complaint with his department with regard to this accident but he had not brought the said complaint on the date on which this evidence was recorded. It is a settled proposition of law this tribunal is to decide the issue in hand on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. In my opinion defendant no. 1 being the driver of the bus no. UK 07PA 0838 was required to be more cautious and careful while driving the bus. In my considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case, by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, it can be said that in all likelihood accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. UK 07PA 0838 by defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences u/s. 279/338/304A IPC. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
7.2 ISSUE No.2 Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP In view of my findings on issue no. 1, claimants are entitled to compensation u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Here deceased Baby Alia is 1 ½ years at the Page No. 7 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 time of her death. Grant of compensation in case of death of children below 18 years of age is governed by case law titled as Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram MAC. App. 554/2010 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Gauba, Judge, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.05.2016. In the said case law it has been observed as under: "71. Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows :
(i). Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature, or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings (in future or present) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence, this having regard, inter alia, to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of nonearning persons (`15000/ p.a.) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taken into account after it is inflationcorrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflationcorrection, the financial year of 19971998 shall be treated as the "base year" and the value of the notional income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner : ₹ 15,000/ x A ÷331 [wherein the figure of „`15,000/‟ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflationcorrection; „A‟ represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident / death occurred); and the figure of „331‟ represents the CII for the „base year‟]
(iii). After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income (i.e. inflationcorrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv). The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of onethird being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate (hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v). For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi). For children of the agegroup of more than 10 years upto 15 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii). For children of the agegroup of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, Page No. 8 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii). After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite nonpecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix). The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest (if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.
72. The ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763) was rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 14.07.2009. Though it had built upon the dispensation in R.K.Malik (supra), given the effect of inflation elaborately discussed above, it has outlived its utility for cases relating to later years. At the same time, it must be noted, that the view in Farzana (supra) has governed the field till date, inasmuch as it has been followed by other single benches of this Court as also by tribunals in various cases. Given the modified method of calculation as is being determined by this judgment, it is possible that in some of the earlier decided cases, the compensation computed on revised lines may fall below the amount of ₹3,75,000/ computed in Farzana (supra). Since the awards in such earlier decided cases were granted with reference to the ratio in Farzana (supra), it will not be fair to order any modification in cases that relate to the period on or after 10.05.2000 (the date of cause of action in Farzana) so as to reduce the awards below the said amount of ₹3,75,000/, particularly as some of such awards may already have been satisfied, including on account of interim orders of this Court.
73. Thus, in cases founded on cause of action arising on or after 10.05.2000, the amount of compensation shall not in any case be less than ₹3,75,000/ which was awarded in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana (2009 ACJ 2763)."
Thus, compensation this case is calculated as under: INFLATION CORRECTED AMOUNT: = Rs. 15,000/ X1081/331 = Rs. 48987.91 = Rs, 49,000.00 (rounded off to next figure in thousands of rupees) PECUNIARY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs.49,000/X2/3 X 10 = Rs. 3,26,666.66 COMPOSITE NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES= Rs. 3,26,666.66/ Total Compensation = Rs. 3,26,666.66 + Rs. 3,26,666.66 = Rs.6,53,333.32 = Rs. 6,53,000/ (rounded off to nearest thousands of rupees) Page No. 9 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 7.3 LIABILITY Defendant no. 2 is vicariously liable to pay the liabilities of defendant no. 1 being his employer. Accordingly, it is held that defendant no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.6,53,000/ to the claimants.
7.4 ISSUE NO.3: Relief.
It is noted that claimant no. 1 is the mother of the deceased and claimant no. 2 is father of the deceased, who was minor aged more than 1½ years. Claimant no. 1 being the mother of the deceased is taken to be dependent and entitled to compensation on account of death of Baby Alia to the tune of ₹6,53,000/. It is held that claimant no. 1 is entitled to receive the abovesaid compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition (08.05.2015) till the date of notice of deposit of awarded amount inclusive of interest through crossed cheque in the name of claimant no. 1 before this court by defendant no. 2 to claimant no. 1 with copy of ld. counsel for claimants.
If award is not complied with within 30 days from today, defendant no. 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the abovementioned sum (i.e. ₹6,53,000.00) for the default period.
Out of the awarded amount to the claimant no. 1 Rs. 6,00,000/ shall be kept in 60 monthly FDRs each for Rs. 10,000/ with cumulative interest for 1 to 60 months and the remaining amount shall be released to her by crediting the same in her account with following details: ICICI Bank, Branch E5/19, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110 094,A/c no. 102401004204 MICR 110229096, IFSC - ICIC0001024,Customer No. 554951318 Page No. 10 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017 Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15 FDRs shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity of FDR, and maturity amount of the monthly FDRs would be given to the claimant month by month by automatically crediting the same in the abovesaid bank account of claimant no. 1 .
(ii) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited in the saving account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to the claimant in the savings bank account without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account of fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
Put up for compliance on 26.05.2017. Also defendant no. 2 shall file on record proof of notice of deposit and calculation of interest.
8. Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties for compliance. Also certified copy of the award be sent to DLSA.
9. FormIV to the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure is attached herewith as Annexure A.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in Open Court on 26.04.2017
(ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD COURTS / DELHI
Page No. 11 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
Annexure A
FORM - IV
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 01.04.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not applicable as accident took place Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2) out of Delhi.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not applicable as accident took place Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2) out of Delhi.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Not applicable as accident took place before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10) out of Delhi.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report Not applicable as accident took place (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims out of Delhi. Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company Not applicable as accident took place (Clause 11) out of Delhi.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) (Clause 11) Not applicable as accident took place out of Delhi.
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Not applicable as accident took place
16) out of Delhi.
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR Not applicable as accident took place out of Delhi.
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed Not applicable as accident took place with DAR (Clause 4) out of Delhi.
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Not applicable as accident took place of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any out of Delhi. action / direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not applicable as accident took place Insurance Company. (Clause 19) out of Delhi.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not applicable as accident took place Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 19) out of Delhi.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Not applicable as accident took place Company submitted his report within 30 days of the out of Delhi.
DAR? (Clause 21)
Page No. 12 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL)
PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017
Nasreen Zahan & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. MACT No. 64/15
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the Not applicable as accident took place liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the out of Delhi. Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
(Clause 22)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part Not applicable as accident took place of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? out of Delhi. If so, whether any action / direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the Not applicable as accident took place Insurance Company. (Clause 23) out of Delhi.
18. Date of the award 26.04.2017
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No. parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) examined at the time of Yes. passing of the award to ascertain his / their financial condition? (Clause 26)
21. Whether the photographs, specimen signatures, proof Yes. of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured / legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause 26)
22. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the Monthly FDRs/lumpsum release claimant(s). (Clause 28)
23. Next Date of compliance of the award. 26.05.2017 (Clause 30) (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) P.O. MACT(NorthEast), KKD Delhi Page No. 13 of 13 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) PO - MACT / NE / KKD / DELHI /26.04.2017