Delhi District Court
Sangita Devi & Ors. vs . Praveen Kumar & Ors. on 27 May, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, PO : MACT (SOUTHWEST
DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 862/16
Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010019372015
1. Sangita Devi
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
2. Sandhya Kumari
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
3. Supriya Kumari
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
4. Sapna Bharti
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
5. Anjali Kumari
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
6. Shivam Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
(Petitioner nos. 2,3,4,5 & 6 being minors
through mother/natural guardian Smt. Sangita
petitioner no.1 )
7. Rajender Prasad
S/o Sh. Awadh Kishore Prasad
8 Sushila Devi
W/o Sh. Rajender Prasad
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 1/55
2
All Resident of :
53, Badakar, Tehsil Silav,
District Nalanda, Bihar ... Petitioners
Vs
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o WZ19880 Yards Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. Bal Kishan Arora (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass
R/o A3839, Ablock,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office : (312801)
Opposite of Kamla Nehru Park,
Gurudwara Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana ... Respondents
Sushila Vs. Praveen & Ors.
MACP No. : 298/16
CNR No.DLSW010006502015
Sushila Devi
W/o Sh. Rajender Parsad
R/o: 53, Badakar,
Tehsil: Silav, District Nalanda,
Bihar ... Petitioner
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 2/55
3
Vs
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o WZ19880 Yards Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. Bal Kishan Arora (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass
R/o A3839, Ablock,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Officea : (312801)
Opposite of Kamla Nehru Park,
Gurudwara Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana ... Respondents
Pawan Vs. Praveen & Ors.
MACP No. : 299/16
CNR No.DLSW010006532015
Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Mithlesh Kumar
R/o: Village Dhanauti
PS& District Jahanabad ,
Bihar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Sh. Praveen Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 3/55
4
R/o WZ19880 Yards Harijan Colony,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. Bal Kishan Arora (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass
R/o A3839, Ablock,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Branch Office : (312801)
Opposite of Kamla Nehru Park,
Gurudwara Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana ... Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No. 862/16 11.02.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 298/16 17.04.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 299/16 17.04.2015
Date on which, judgment have been reserved29.04.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment 27.05.2019
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
( In MACP No. 298/16 Sushila Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 12.01.2015
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 4/55
5
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC before Not clear from record
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 17.04.2015
(DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 17.04.2015
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 17.04.2015
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N.A
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action /
direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If No
so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action / directions warranted?
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 5/55
6
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 27.05.2019
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No.
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open savings Yes
bank accounts (s) near their place of residence ? ( Clause
18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 12.02.2018
savings bank accounts(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
claimants (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of 10.07.2018
their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) 53, Badakar, Tehsil Silav,
(Clause 27 ) District Nalanda, Bihar
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and SB account no. 1193101021304
the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause 27) at Canara Bank, Nalanda, Bihar
(IFSC Code : CRNB0001193 ).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name and Account No. 37665510911 at
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the SBI, District Court Complex,
award amount is to be deposited/transferred. Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 6/55
7
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
( In MACP No. 299/16 Pawan Kumar Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 12.01.2015
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC before Not clear from record
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 17.04.2015
(DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 17.04.2015
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 17.04.2015
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N.A
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action /
direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If No
so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 7/55
8
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 27.05.2019
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No.
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open savings Yes
bank accounts (s) near their place of residence ? ( Clause
18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 12.02.2018
savings bank accounts(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
claimants (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s) (Clause 18 )
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of 10.07.2018
their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) Village Dhanauti, PS & District
(Clause 27 ) Jehanabad, Bihar
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and SB A/c no. 593602010009123
the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause 27) at Union Bank of India,
Dhanauti, District Jahanabad,
Bihar (IFSC Code :
UBIN0559369 )
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name and Account No. 37665510911 at
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the SBI, District Court Complex,
award amount is to be deposited/transferred. Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 8/55
9
JUDGMENT:
Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of three connected cases i.e. claim petition bearing MACP No. 862/16, DAR bearing MACP No. 298/16 and DAR bearing MACP No. 299/16 pertaining to the same road accident, which took place on 12.01.2015.
The present claim petition (MACP No. 862/16) has been filed on behalf of petitionersSangita & Ors. against respondentsPraveen Kumar & Ors. for grant of compensation in respect of death of Sanjay Kumar caused in the road traffic accident on 12.01.2015.
The connected case/DAR bearing (MACP No.298/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injuredSushila in the same road traffic accident.
The another connected case/DAR bearing (MACP No. 299/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injuredPawan Kumar in the abovesaid road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts as made out from the abovesaid petition and DARs are that on 12.01.2015 at about 7:30AM, Sanjay Kumar alongwith his mother Sushila Devi and cousin Pawan Kumar and his fatherinlaw namely Raja Ram was coming from Delhi Railway Station to Chhawla village in a TSR bearing DL 1RK 7406, which was being driven by his fatherinlaw Raja Ram and when they reached between Pochan Pur red light to Dhulsirs village, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1YC 9378 came from village Chhawla side at a very high speed, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR as a result of which, the persons traveling in the TSR fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, injured was taken to DDU hospital by PCR (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 9/55 10 van and from there, Sanjay Kumar was referred to Spinal Injuries hospital, where during treatment, he died. It is stated that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and a case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 12/2015 u/s 279/338/304A IPC at PS Sector 23, Dwarka.
On conclusion of the investigation, DAR (bearing MACP No. 298/16) has been filed by the IO qua injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Sushila in the abovesaid accident. Further, the connected DAR (bearing MACP No. 299/16) has been filed by the IO qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Pawan Kumar in the same accident. The present claim petition bearing MACP No. 862/16 has also been filed qua the death of Sanjay Kumar in the abovesaid road traffic accident and therein it has been prayed that an award of Rs.60 lacs alongwith interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. WS has been filed on behalf of R1 Praveen Kumar (driver) and R2 Bal Kishan Arora (owner of the offending vehicle), wherein it has been stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners was excessive, exorbitant and without any basis. It is further stated that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and the claim of the petitioners was also incomplete and vague and does not disclose full facts and circumstances of the incident. It is stated that the respondent no.1 was having the valid DL and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 and thus, all the liabilities were of respondent no. 3/ insurance company.
Further, in parawise reply, contents of para 1 to 3, 8 to 10, 14 to 18, 19 to 22, 25 & 26 of the petition are stated to be matter of record. Contents of remaining paras of the petition have been denied on behalf of the said respondents and it has (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 10/55 11 been prayed that the present petition/ claims filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. WS has also been filed on behalf of R3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd., wherein it has been stated that the liability of the said respondent/ insurance company was as per terms and conditions and exceptions of the insurance policy and as per provisions of MV Act.
Further, in reply on merits, contents of para 1 to 3, 10 to 17 of the petition are stated to be matter of record. Further, in reply to para18, it has been stated that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1YC 9378 was duly insured with the said insurance company vide policy no. 35380231140100000690 for the period from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015 in the name of Sh. Bal Kishan Arora.
5. In the present cases, since common question of law and facts were involved in all these cases i.e. petition/DARs bearing MACP No. 862/16, MACP No. 298/16 and MACP No. 299/16, the common issues were framed and the same were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case/ bearing MACP No. 862/16 as "Leading Case" vide order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the abovesaid petition/DARs on 11.05.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court :
ISSUES :
1. Whether Sh. Sanjay Kumar sustained fatal injuries and Sushila and Pawan sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 12.01.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (car) no. DL 1YC 9378 by R1 ? ...OPP (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 11/55 12
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
6. In support of their case, petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Sangita Devi (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No. 862/16), PW2 Smt. Sushila (petitioner no. 8 in MACP No. 862/16 and petitioner/injured in MACP No. 298/16) and PW3 Pawan Kumar (petitioner/injured in MACP No. 299/16) and thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners.
7. In RE, R3 insurance company has examined R3W1 Ms. Nili Niranjan, Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Company Ltd and thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
8. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. counsels for the petitioners and R3/ insurance company and have carefully gone through record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence led by the petitioners in support of their case and RE led behalf of R3/ insurance company. I have also carefully perused written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners and R3/ insurance company.
It is pertinent to mentioned here that the arguments have not been addressed in this case on behalf of R1 Praveen Kumar (driver) and R2 Bal Kishan Arora (owner of offending vehicle), despite opportunity being given.
9. The issuewise findings are as under :
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 12/55 13
10. ISSUE No. 1 in all three cases bearing MACP No. 862/16, MACP No. 298/16 & MACP No. 299/16 Whether Sh. Sanjay Kumar sustained fatal injuries and Sushila and Pawan sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 12.01.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle (car) no. DL 1YC 9378 by R1 ? ...OPP The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 1 was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW3 Pawan Kumar ( petitioner/injured in MACP No. 299/16), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A), wherein it has been stated that on 12.01.2015 at about 7:30AM, he alongwith other passengers namely Sanjay Kumar, Sushila Kumari and Raja Ram was coming from Delhi Railway Station to Chhawla village in a TSR bearing DL 1RK 7406 which was being driven by Raja Ram and when they reached between Pochan Pur red light to Dhulsirs village, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1YC 9378 came from village Chhawla side at a very high speed, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR as a result of which, the persons traveling in the TSR fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. PW3 also deposed that abovesaid accident occurred due to sole negligence of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules and norms.
In regard to issue no. 1, petitioners have also examined PW2 Sushila (petitioner no. 8 in MACP No. 862/16 and petitioner/injured in MACP No. 298/16) and she has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) and contents of the said affidavit are almost on the similar lines as that of affidavit ( Ex. PW3/A ) of PW3 Pawan Kumar.
The important fact is that the abovesaid witnesses i.e. PW3 Pawan (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 13/55 14 Kumar and PW2 Sushila were cross examined on behalf of the respondents, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of these witnesses.
In his cross examination by Ld counsel for R1 & R2, PW3 stated that he was an eye witness to the accident and had also received injuries on his head, chest, left side of the body including leg and back. PW3 denied the suggestion that the driver of their auto rickshaw was at fault, which led to the accident. Further, in his cross examination by Ld counsel for R3/Insurance company, PW3 also denied the suggestion that all the documents filed by him, were false and fabricated or that he was deposing falsely.
Further, in her cross examination by Ld counsel for R1 & R2, PW2 stated that she was an eye witness to the accident and she had also received injuries on her head. PW2 denied the suggestion that the driver of their auto rickshaw was at fault, which led to the accident. Further, in her cross examination by Ld counsel for R3/Insurance company, PW2 also denied the suggestion that all the documents filed by her, were false and fabricated or that she was deposing falsely. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of these witnesses i.e PW2 & PW3 qua their deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Sanjay Kumar received fatal injuries and died and petitioners/injuredSushila and Pawan Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 12.01.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL 1YC 9378, which was being driven and owned by R1 Praveen Kumar, R2 Bal Kishan Arora and insured with R3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident.
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 14/55 15 Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
11. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 862/16 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW1 Sangita Devi ( petitioner no. 1 in MACP No. 862/16), who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that she was the wife of the deceased in the said case and was well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. PW1 further deposed that her husband met with an accident on 12.01.2015 at about 7:30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1YC 9378 and died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. PW1 deposed that her husband was 44 years of age and was a home tutor and was earning Rs.25,000/per month at the time of accident. PW1 further deposed that her husband had left behind her, four daughters and parents as his legal heirs. PW1 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/10.
Hence view of the above and view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceased Sanjay Kumar received fatal injuries and died in motor vehicle accident dated 12.01.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL 1YC 9378, which was being driven by R1 Praveen Kumar, owned by R2 Bal Kishan Arora and insured with R3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceasedSanjay Kumar have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 15/55 16 in the abovesaid accident.
12 Quantum of compensation payable to LRs of the deceasedSanjay Kumar is ascertained under the following heads :
13. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per his school leaving certificate and other documents/ material on record, the date of birth of deceased -Sanjay Kumar was 16.8.1971 and as such he was about 44 years of age at the time of accident on 12.1.2015. Hence, the multiplier of '14' is taken in this case.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceasedSanjay Kumar was married and has left behind eight LRs i.e. petitioner no.1 Sangita Devi (wife), petitioner no.2 Sandhya Kumari (daughter) ,petitioner no.3 Supriya ( daughter ), petitioner no.4 Sapna Bharti ( daughter ), petitioner no.5 Anjali Kumari ( daughter ), petitioner no. 6 Shivam Kumar (son), petitioner no.7 Rajender Prasad ( father ) and petitioner no.8 Sushila Devi ( mother). In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr' [ reported as (2009 ) 6SCC 121] , one fifth (1/5th ) of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
In the instant case, PW1 Smt. Sangita Devi (wife /LR of deceased) (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 16/55 17 deposed that at the time of accident, her husband was 44 years of age and was a home tutor and was earning Rs.25,000/per month, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding the said employment or income of the deceased have been brought on record by the petitioners and in absence thereof, the minimum wages prescribed during the relevant period (12.1.2015) i.e Rs. 8,632/p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in the instant case.
In view of the above, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased Sanjay Kumar can be calculated as under:.
a) Income of the deceased Rs. 8,632 /p.m
Sanjay Kumar
b) 25% addition towards future prospects : Rs. 2,158/
c) 1/5th deduction towards on personal
and living expenses of deceased. : Rs.2,158/
d) Monthly loss of dependency
(Rs. 8,632/ + Rs.2,158/ : Rs. 8,632/
Rs. 2,158/)
e) Annual loss of dependency to the
family due to death of deceased : Rs. 1,03,584/
(Rs.8,632 / x 12)
f) Total loss of dependency to the
family due to death of deceased
( Rs. 1,03,584 / x 14) : Rs.14,50,176 /
Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Sanjay Kumar comes to Rs. 14,50,176/ and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e Rs. 14,50,176/(Rupees Fourteen Lacs, Fifty Thousand, One Hundred Seventy Six only) as compensation (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 17/55 18 under the head 'loss of dependency'.
15. MEDICAL EXPENSES In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that after the accident on 12.1.2015, Sanjay Kumar (since deceased) remained hospitalized at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, where he scummbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and in this regard, the medical and treatment bills amounting to Rs. 1,10,833/pertaining to the said Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi have been filed on record. There is no reason to doubt the said bill. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioners shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,833/ (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand, Eight Hundred, Thirty Three Only ) towards medical expenses of the deceased.
16. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as ' National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ( reported as 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1720), a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
17. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi ( supra), a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
18. LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION In the instant case, due to the death of deceased Sanjay Kumar, his (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 18/55 19 children i.e petitioner no.2 Sandhya Kumari (daughter ) ,petitioner no.3 Supriya ( daughter ), petitioner no.4 Sapna Bharti ( daughter ), petitioner no.5 Anjali Kumari (daughter), petitioner no. 6 Shivam Kumar (son) as well as his parents i.e petitioner no.7 Rajender Prasad (father) & petitioner no.8 Sushila Devi ( mother) have suffered loss of love and affection. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of law/guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram ( reported as 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546), a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ (20,000 x 7) is awarded as compensation under the head loss of love and affection .
19. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In terms of the law/guidelines laid down in the caseNational Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi ( supra), a sum of Rs.40,000/ is awarded to the petitioner
- Smt. Sangita Devi (wife of the deceased) towards 'loss of consortium'.
20. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : S. No. HEAD AMOUNT 1 Loss of dependency Rs.14,50,176 /
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,10,833/ 3 Loss of love and affection to children (20,000 x 7) Rs.1,40,000/ 4 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/ 5 For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/ 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/ TOTAL Rs.17,71,009/rounded of as Rs. 17,71,000/ (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 19/55 20
21. Further, in the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that an interim award of Rs. 50,000/ has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and accordingly, the said amount of interim award i.e Rs 50,000/ is required to be adjusted/deducted from the compensation amount i.e Rs. 17,71,000/ being awarded in this case and as such, the award amount in the instant case comes to Rs.17,21,000/ ( i.e Rs. 17,71,000 Rs. 50,000/) .
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.17,21,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lacs, Twenty One Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioners in the present case .
22. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e Rs. 17,21,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 11.2.2015 till realization.
23. RELIEF IN MACP No. 862/16 ( Sangita & Ors. Vs. PraveenKumar & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.17,21,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lacs, Twenty One Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 11.2.2015 till realization (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 20/55 21 is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
24. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e Rs. 17,21,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lacs, Twenty One Thousand only) shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased Sanjay Kumar in the following manner with proportionate interest. S. No. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount
1. Petitioner no.1 Sangita Devi ( wife ) Rs. 7,21,000/
2. Petitioner no.2 Sandhya Kumari (minor daughter ) Rs. 1,50,000/
3. Petitioner no.3 Supriya Kumari (minor daughter ) Rs. 1,50,000/
4. Petitioner no.4 Sapna Bharti (minor daughter ) Rs. 1,50,000/
5. Petitioner no.5 Anjali Kumari (minor daughter ) Rs. 1,50,000/
6. Petitioner no.6 Shivam (minor son ) Rs. 1,50,000/
7. Petitioner no.7 Rajender Prasad (father ) Rs. 1,00,000/
8. Petitioner no.8 Sushila Devi (mother ) Rs. 1,50,000/ Total Rs. 17,21,000 /
25. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 12.1.2015
ii). Name of the deceased : Sanjay Kumar
iii). Age of the deceased : 44 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Private Work
v). Income of the deceased : Rs. 8,632/ (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 21/55 22
vi). Name , age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
(i) Sangita Devi 32 years Wife
(ii) Sandhya Kumari 17 years Minor Daughter
(iii) Supriya Kumari 14 years Minor Daughter
(iv) Sapna Bharti 11 years Minor Daughter
(v) Anjali Kumari 07 years Minor Daughter
(vi) Shivam 05 years Minor Son
(vii) Rajender Prasad 68 years Father
(viii) Sushila Devi 60 years Mother Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 8,632/per month
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Rs. 2,158/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs. 2,158/
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 8,632/ [ (A+B)C=D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) Rs 1,03,584/ 12. Multiplier (E) 14
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E=F) Rs. 14,50,176/
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 1,10,833
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) Rs. 1,40,000/ (20,000 x 7)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs. 40,000/
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs. 15,000/
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,71,009/rounded of as (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rs. 17,71,000 Rs. 50,000/ (interim award) = Rs. 17,21,000/ (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 22/55 23
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 11.2.2015 till realization.
22. Total amount including interest ( L+M) Rs.17,21,000 / + @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e.11.2.2015 till realization.
23. Award amount released As per table given below
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to By credit in the SB Account of the claimant (s) (Clause 29) the petitioners
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 11.7.2019 ( Clause 31)
26. Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased Sanjay Kumar regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No Name Status Amount of Release Amount of FDR Award Amount
1. Sangita Devi Wife Rs. 7,21,000/ Rs. 71,000/ Rs. 6.5 lacs be kept in 65 FDRs of Rs. 10,000/each for the period from one month to 65 months in the name of petitioner no.1 Smt. Sangita Devi with cumulative interest.
2. Sandhya Minor Rs.1,50,000 / The entire amount of Rs.1.5 lacs Kumari daughter be kept in the form of FDR till petitioner no.2 Sandhya Kumari attains age of 18 years (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 23/55 24
3. Supriya Minor Rs.1,50,000 / The entire amount of Rs.1.5 lacs Kumari daughter be kept in the form of FDR till petitioner no.3 Supriya Kumari attains age of 18 years
4. Sapna Bharti Minor Rs.1,50,000 / The entire amount of Rs.1.5 lacs daughter be kept in the form of FDR till petitioner no.4 Sapna Bharti attains age of 18 years
5. Anjali Kumari Minor Rs.1,50,000 / The entire amount of Rs.1.5 lacs daughter be kept in the form of FDR till petitioner no.5 Anjali Kumari Kumari attains age of 18 years
6. Shivam Minor son Rs.1,50,000 / The entire amount of Rs.1.5 lacs be kept in the form of FDR till petitioner no.6 Shivam attains age of 18 years
7. Rajender Father Rs. 1,00,000/ Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 90,000/ be kept in 18 Prasad FDRs of Rs. 5,000/each for the period from one month to 18 months in the name of petitioner no.7 Rajender Prasad with cumulative interest.
8. Sushila Devi Mother Rs. 1,50,000/ Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 1,35,000/ be kept in 27 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/each for the period from one month to 27 months in the name of petitioner no.8 Sushila Devi with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
27. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 298/16 was upon the petitioner/injuredSushila and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioner/ (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 24/55 25 injured Sushila has examined herself as PW2 and has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that on 12.1.2015 at about 7:30p.m, she met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle bearing no. DL1YC9378. PW2 further deposed that at the time of accident , she was 58 years old and due to the accident she and her family members had suffered mental pain , agony and economic losses . PW2 deposed that she has spent Rs.10,000/ on her medical treatment and Rs. 50,000/ on conveyance and special diet. PW2 has also relied upon the documents , Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/2 .
In the present case, from the material and evidence record, it is clear that petitioner/injuredSushila has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no.. DL 1YC9378, which was being driven by R1 Praveen Kumar, owned by R2 Bal Kishan Arora and insured with R3/New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such,petitioner/injured Sushila and has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Sushila is ascertained under the following heads :
28. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record/MLC pertaining to Artemis Hospital, New Delhi, petitioner/injured Sushila has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case.
Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that she has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident in this case.
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 25/55 26
29. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injuredSushila has undergone treatment at Artemis Hospital , Delhi for the injuries sustained by her in the accident in this case .
Further, in regard to the abovesaid treatment undergone by her, petitioner/injured Sushila has placed on record the medical bills/ receipts, amounting to Rs.1050/.There is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1050/ and accordingly, the petitioner/ injured Sushila is awarded the said amount i.e Rs. 1050 /(Rupees One Thousand & Fifty Only ) towards medicines and medical treatment.
30. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Sushila has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for her treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that she has spent Rs.50,000/ on conveyance and special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ ( Rupees Ten Thousand (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 26/55 27 only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by her, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
31. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured has not placed on record any evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding her employment or income at the time of accident and in absence thereof, the minimum wages during the relevant period (12.1.2015) i.e Rs.8,632/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered grievous injuries and has remained hospitalized for about one day. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by her in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,632/ x 2= Rs. 17,264/ (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) under the head ' Loss of Income'
32. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that she has spent a sum of Rs. 24,000/ on attendant, however neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 27/55 28 case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injuredSushila has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and he remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by her in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about two months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/ injured would have also needed an attendant to look after her, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of her family members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita" (reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000 X 2 = Rs. 6,000/ (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'.
33. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has sustained grievous injuries in the (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 28/55 29 accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by her. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
34. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that she has suffered the loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 57 years of age at the time of accident and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
35. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injuredSushila is tabulated as below : (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 29/55 30 S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment Rs. 1050/
2. Conveyance Rs. 10,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of Income Rs. 17,264/
5. Attendant Rs. 6,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 40,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 20,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,19,314/ rounded of as Rs. 1,20,000/
36. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 1,20,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
37. RELIEF IN MACP No. 298/16 ( Sushila Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.1,20,000 / (Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 17.4.2015 till realization is passed in (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 30/55 31 favour of the petitioner/injured-Sushila and against the respondents .
38. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 12.1.2015
ii). Name of the injured : Sushila
iii). Age of the injured : 57 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 8,632/ p.m
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Artemis Hospital, New Delhi by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1050/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Rs. 6,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 17,264/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 31/55
32
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 1,19,314/ rounded of as Rs. 1,20,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,20,000// + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured. 21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 11.7.2019 ( Clause 31) (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 32/55 33
39. Further, the statement of petitioner/injuredSushila regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Sushila Injured Rs. 1,20,000/ Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 1,05,000/ be kept in 21 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 21 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
40. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 299/16 was upon the petitioner/injuredPawan Kumar and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar has examined himself as PW3 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A), wherein it has been stated that on 12.1.2015 at about 7:30p.m, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle bearing no. DL1YC9378. PW3 further deposed that at the time of accident , he was 26 years old and was doing business and earning Rs. 25,000/ p.m and due to the accident he and his family members had suffered mental pain , agony and economic losses . PW3 deposed that he has spent Rs.10,000/ on his medical treatment and Rs. 50,000/ on conveyance and special (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 33/55 34 diet. PW3 has also relied upon the documents , Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/2 .
In the present case, from the material and evidence record, it is clear that petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no.. DL 1YC9378, which was being driven by R1 Praveen Kumar, owned by R2 Bal Kishan Arora and insured with R3/New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such,petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar and has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar is ascertained under the following heads :
41. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record/MLC pertaining to Artemis Hospital, New Delhi, petitioner/injuredPawan Kumar has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case.
Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
42. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar has undergone treatment at Artemis Hospital , Delhi for the injuries sustained by her in the accident in this case .
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/ injured Pawan Kumar has received almost his entire treatment from the Artemis Hospital and no medical bills qua expenses incurred by him on his treatment or (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 34/55 35 medicines, have been placed on record. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in this case.
43. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Pawan Kumar has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/ doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent Rs. 50,000/ on conveyance and special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ ( Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
44. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured has not placed on record any (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 35/55 36 evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding his business or income at the time of accident and in absence thereof, the minimum wages during the relevant period (12.1.2015) i.e Rs.8,632/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered grievous injuries and has remained hospitalized for about one day. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,632/ x 2= Rs. 17,264/ (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) under the head ' Loss of Income'
45. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 24,000/ on attendant, however neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injuredPawan Kumar has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and he remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about two months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/ injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 36/55 37 members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita"
(reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000 X 2 = Rs. 6,000/ (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'.
46. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 37/55 38
47. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 26 years of age at the time of accident and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
48. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injuredPawan Kumar is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment
2. Conveyance Rs. 10,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of Income Rs. 17,264/
5. Attendant Rs. 6,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 40,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 20,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,18,264/ rounded of as Rs. 1,19,000/ (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 38/55 39
49. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 1,19,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
50. RELIEF IN MACP No. 299/16 ( Pawan Kumar Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.1,19,000 / (Rupees One Lakh, Nineteen Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 17.4.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Pawan Kumar and against the respondents .
51. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 12.1.2015
ii). Name of the injured : Pawan Kumar
iii). Age of the injured : 26 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 8,632/ p.m (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 39/55 40
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Artemis Hospital, New Delhi by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Rs. 6,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 17,264/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 40/55 41
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 1,18,264/ rounded of as Rs. 1,19,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,19,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 17.4.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 11.7.2019 ( Clause 31)
52. Further,the statement of petitioner/injuredPawan Kumar regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner / injured and having regard to facts and (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 41/55 42 circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Pawan Injured Rs. 1,19,000/ Rs. 14,000/ Rs. 1,05,000/ be kept in Kumar 21 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 21 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
53. LIABILITY (In all the cases bearing MACP No. 862/16, MACP No.298/16 & MACP No. 299/16) The offending vehicle bearing no. DL1YC9378 was being driven by respondent No.1Praveen Kumar , owned by respondent no.2Bal Kishan Arora and was insured with respondent no.3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Company Ltd being the 'principal tort feasor', shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners in all these cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No. 862/16, MACP No.298/16 & MACP No. 298/16).
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 42/55 43
54. In all these cases bearing MACP No. 862/16, MACP No.298/16 & MACP No. 299/16) , the award amounts shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no.3/ New India Assurance Company Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
55. Petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi (petitioner no.1 in MACP No. 862/16) has produced the passbook of her SB Account No. 1193101021237 at Canara Bank, Nalanda, Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that " Cheque Book & ATM not allowed" .
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to her aforesaid SB Account at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 1193101021237 of petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is directed to release the above (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 43/55 44 said cash amount to petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi , as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi without the prior permission of this court.
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Smt. Sangita Devi to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
56. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 1193101021464 in the name of minor petitioner Sandhya Kumari (petitioner no.2 in MACP No. 862/16) has been opened at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that "Cheque Book & ATM not allowed".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 44/55 45 to petitioner in the form of above mentioned FDR till petitioner Sandhya Kumari attains the age of 18 years .
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner .
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Sandhya Kumari .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner Sandhya Kumari without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Sandhya Kumari.
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Sandhya Kumari and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Sandhya Kumari .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar , shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Sandhya Kumari to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
57. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 1193101021458 in the name of minor petitioner Supriya Kumari (petitioner no.3 in MACP No. 862/16) has been opened at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 45/55 46 (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that "Cheque Book & ATM not allowed".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to petitioner in the form of above mentioned FDR till petitioner Supriya Kumari attains the age of 18 years .
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner .
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Supriya Kumari .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner Supriya Kumari without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Supriya Kumari .
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Supriya Kumari and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Supriya Kumari .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar, shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Supriya Kumari to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 46/55 47
58. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 1193101021476 in the name of minor petitioner Sapna Bharti (petitioner no.4 in MACP No. 862/16) has been opened at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that "Cheque Book & ATM not allowed".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to petitioner in the form of above mentioned FDR till petitioner Sapna Bharti attains the age of 18 years .
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner .
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Sapna Bharti .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner Sapna Bharti without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Sapna Bharti .
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Sapna Bharti and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Sapna Bharti .
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 47/55 48 Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar, shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Sapna Bharti to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
59. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 1193101021499 in the name of minor petitioner Anjali Kumari (petitioner no.5 in MACP No. 862/16) has been opened at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that "Cheque Book & ATM not allowed".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to petitioner in the form of above mentioned FDR till petitioner Anjali Kumari attains the age of 18 years .
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner .
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Anjali Kumari .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitioner Anjali Kumari without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Anjali Kumari .
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 48/55 49 issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Anjali Kumari and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Anjali Kumari .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar, shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Anjali Kumari to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
60. In the instant case, it is being stated that a Saving Bank Account No. 1193101021471 in the name of minor petitioner Shivam (petitioner no.6 in MACP No. 862/16) has been opened at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that "Cheque Book & ATM not allowed".
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to keep the abovesaid amount awarded to petitioner in the form of above mentioned FDR till petitioner Shivam attains the age of 18 years .
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner .
The original FDR shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Shivam .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDR to the petitionerShivam without the prior permission of this court.
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 49/55 50 Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Shivam .
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Anjali Kumari and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Shivam .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar, shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Shivam to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
61 Petitioner Rajender Prasad ( petitioner no.7 in MACP No. 862/16) has produced the passbook of his SB Account No. 1193101021314 at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that " Cheque Book & ATM not allowed" .
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner Rajender Prasad that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to his aforesaid SB Account at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 1193101021314 of petitioner Rajender Prasad at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme ( MACAD Scheme ) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 50/55 51 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is directed to release the above said cash amount to petitioner Rajender Prasad , as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Rajender Prasad .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner Rajender Prasad without the prior permission of this court.
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Sh. Rajender Prasad and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Rajender Prasad .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar shall permit account holder i.e Rajender Prasad to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
62. Petitioner Smt Sushila ( petitioner no.8 in MACP No. 862/16 and petitioner in MACP No.298/16) has produced the passbook of her SB Account No. 1193101021304 at Canara Bank, Nalanda, Bihar (IFSC Code No. CRNB0001193), wherein it has been endorsed that " Cheque Book & ATM not (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 51/55 52 allowed" .
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner Smt Sushila that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to his aforesaid SB Account at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 1193101021304 of petitioner Smt Sushila at Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is directed to release the above said cash amount to petitioner Smt Sushila , as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Smt Sushila.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner Smt Sushila without the prior permission of this court.
The abovesaid Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Smt Sushila and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 52/55 53 make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Smt Sushila .
Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar shall permit account holder i.e Smt Sushila to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
63. Petitioner Pawan Kumar ( petitioner/injured in MACP No. 299/16) has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 593602010009123 at Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad ,Bihar (IFSC Code: UBIN0559369) and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 593602010009123 of petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar at Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad, Bihar and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad ,Bihar is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar .
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, (MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 53/55 54 the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar without the prior permission of this court.
The said Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad ,Bihar is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner/ injured
- Pawan Kumar and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar.
Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad ,Bihar shall permit account holder i.e petitioner/injured Pawan Kumar to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
64. The insurance company shall inform the petitioners as well as their counsels through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner/injured to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi, Manager, Canara Bank, Nalanda , Bihar and Manager,Union Bank of India ,Dhanauti, District Jahanabad , Bihar, for information / compliance.
Copy of this award be also sent through e.mail to Sh.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager ( Nodal Officer), State Bank of India at his email ID :
[email protected] in terms of Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2003.
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 54/55 55 Certified copy of this award be given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/ their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading/ main case bearing MACP No. 862/16 and the copies thereof be placed in the files of connected cases bearing MACP No. 298/16 & MACP No. 299/16 .
Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 11.7.2019.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open (Paramjit Singh)
Court on 27.5.2019) PO, MACT (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
27.5.2019
Digitally
signed by
PARAMJIT
PARAMJIT SINGH
SINGH Date:
2019.05.27
16:30:04
+0530
(MACP Nos.862/16, 298/16 & 299/16) Sangita Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kr.& Ors. 55/55