Delhi District Court
Smt. Beemala vs Sh. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj on 24 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01, NORTH
WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
==================================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01 0057872022 MACT CASE No. 500 / 22 FIR No. 500/2022, PS Line Par Bahadurgarh In the matter of :
1. Smt. Beemala W/o Sh. Ramniwash aged about 59 years
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Ramniwash aged about 34 years
3. Sh. Kapil S/o Sh. Ramniwash aged about 31 years
4. Sh. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Ramniwash aged about 28 years All R/o : D129, Jain Colony Barwala, Delhi - 110 039 Also at : Village Pahladpur Kidholi, Pahladpur, (15R) Sonipat, Haryana, .....Petitioners vs.
1. Sh. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Vinod R/o 85, Tau Vihari Marg, behind MCD Girls School, Ladpur, North West, Delhi 110 081 ....Driver/R1 MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 21
2. Sh. Yogender Kumar S/o Sh. Dayanand R/o 85, Tau Vihari Marg, behind MCD Girls School, Ladpur, North West, Delhi 110 081 ....Owner/R2
3. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rider House 3rd Floor, Plot no. 136, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana, ....Insurer/R3 Date of institution of the petition : 09.06.2022 Date of final Arguments : 16.02.2023 Date of Decision : 24.02.2023 Appearance (s) : Sh. P.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. U.C. Rai, Ld. Counsel for R1 & R2 Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for R3 JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (in short, the Act) filed by the LRs of the deceased Ramniwash (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 08.05.2022.
2. It is submitted that on 08.05.2022 at about 12.30 p.m. the deceased along with one Sh. Bijender were going to Bahadurgarh, Haryana on motorcycle bearing number HR79B8722 (in short, the said motorcycle) which was being driven by Sh. Bijender at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached near Bamnoli village, at the same time a Car, make Ritz bearing MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 21 registration no. DL1CAF2378 (in short the offending vehicle), which was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very highspeed in a rash and negligent manner, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from Bahadurgarh city side and hit the said motorcycle with a great force.
3. It is stated that as a result of such forceful collision, the deceased and said Sh. Bijender fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, where the doctors have declared him "brought dead". The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Government Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjhar Haryana, vide the post mortem report no. M406000852200133 and the number given by doctors GH/BG/149/2022 dated 08.05.2022.
4. It is stated that the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of the said accident and was a skilled labour working as Raj Mistri and was earning around Rs. 30,000/ per month from the said work. The deceased was leading a peaceful and comfortable life with the petitioners. Had the accident was not taken place, the income of the deceased would have become more than doubled with the passage of time and he would have lived a long life with the petitioners. The deceased was energetic, and far sighted person. The deceased has left behind the petitioner no.1 Beemala, Wife, aged about 59 years, petitioner no.2/Ashok, son aged about 24 years, petitioner no.3/Kapil, MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 21 son aged about 31 years and petitioner no.4/Kuldeep son, aged about 28 years who are the only legal heirs of the deceased.
5. It is stated that the petitioners were dependent upon the income of the deceased and due to the death of the deceased, they have suffered a great mental pain, shock and trauma. The entire life of the petitioners have become dark and gloomy and the losses suffered by the petitioners are quite irreparable and no amount and compensate the losses suffered by the petitioners.
6. It is stated that due to he sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered financial loss as well as loss of love & affection, loss of consortium, company, guidance and support and the entire life of the petitioners have become dark and gloomy. The deceased used to pay his entire income to the petitioner no.1 for household expenses, and they all were dependent on the income of the deceased, and petitioners have no other source of income. The deceased was having sound mind, good health and robust physique and was not suffering from any kind of ailment or addicted to any vice. The petitioners have incurred Rs. 50,000 on transportation and last rites of the deceased and FIR bearing no. 148/2022 under section 279/304A IPC was also registered with PS Line Par, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
7. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, and, it is, interalia submitted that the said MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 21 accident was caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the said motorcycle and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any claim and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The investigating officer has falsely implicated the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 at the instance of the petitioner just to get the compensation and a false FIR has been registered against them.
8. It is submitted that the correct facts of the case are that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was parked on extreme left side of the road and at that the said motorcycle came from behind at a very fast speed driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the right side mirror of the offending vehicle. The said motorcycle also hit the backside of the car, as driver of the said motorcycle could not control his balance and fell down on the road and sustained injuries due to his own fault and the petitioners have falsely registered a case against respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, however, in fact, the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 were not negligent. It is prayed that the present petition is false and fabricated and the same be dismissed.
9. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company and, it is, interalia, submitted that the Act is beneficial legislation meant for the benefit of the petitioners, however, the incident took place in Bahadurgarh, Haryana which is beyond the territorial the jurisdiction of this court. It is submitted that respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation, MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 21 in case it is found that driver of the offending vehicle not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the said accident, in that event, the owner/insured of the offending vehicle is liable to pay composition amount to the petitioner.
10. It is submitted that without prejudice to the other objections, the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioners in case, it is found that there is any collusion between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. As per the record, the offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no. VPT04219610001000 issued in the name of Sh. Yogender Kumar/respondent no.2 for a period with effect from 16.03.2022 to 15.03.2022.
11. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 28.10.2022 :
1. Whether deceased Ramniwash S/o late Sh. Bhagwana expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 08.05.2022 at about 12.30 pm at Nahra Nahri Road Bamnoli, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing no. DL1CAF2378, which was being driven by driver Sh. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj s/o Sh. Vinod, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 21
12. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence. In order to prove its case, Smt. Beemala, has been examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied on :
(i) Copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1,
(ii) Copy of Aadhar card of P1 as Ex. PW1/2,
(iii) Copy of Aadhar card of P2 as Ex. PW1/3,
(iv) Copy of Aadhar card of P3 as Ex. PW1/4,
(v) Copy of Aadhar card of P4 as Ex. PW1/5
(vi) Attested copy of criminal court documents as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly)
13. In crossexamination, PW1 testified that she is not an eye witness to the said accident. She do not know with whom the deceased was working as Raj Mistri, however, he used to work 1520 days in a month. She testified that deceased used to give her Rs. 30,000/ when the work being done by him was completed, however, he was not an income tax payee. All the children were already married and working and earning persons at the time of accident and were residing with their families.
14. PW1 denied that deceased was not working as Raj Mistri or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of said accident. She denied that she was not dependent upon the income of deceased. She denied that she is dependent upon her sons. She testified that she did not lodge any police complaint regarding this accident. She denied that no such accident took place with the offending vehicle or that the offending vehicle has falsely been implicated in collusion MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 21 with the police officials and respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. She admitted that all her children were not financially dependent upon the deceased.
15. PW1 testified that she has no documentary proof to show that the deceased was residing in Delhi or that he was working and earning in Delhi. She also denied that deceased has no relation with Delhi qua his occupation and residence or that she is deposing falsely regarding the same to inflate her claim. She also do remember the dated of birth of deceased as well as herself. She testified that deceased was 23 years elder to her.
16. PW1 denied that deceased was more than 66 years of age. She also has not documentary proof to show that the deceased was qualified Raj Mistri. She denied that deceased was neither qualified to work as Raj Mistri or that he was not working for gain or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of accident. She denied that she has not incurred any amount of treatment and last rites of the deceased.
17. Thereafter petitioners evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
18. Sh. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj has been examined as RW1 who has deposed in terms of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and has relied upon the copy of the driving license as Mark RW1/1 and insurance policy as Ex. RW1/2.
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 21
19. In crossexamination, RW1 testified that he has never made any complaint to any authority regarding the false implication of offending vehicle as the said motorcycle had, infact, hit the offending vehicle. Witness has testified that he has been falsely implicated in the present petition.
20. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents and written submissions filed by ld. Counsel for parties. My issue wise findings in the case are as under: ISSUE NO.1
21. The present petition has been filed against the respondents and onus is upon the petitioners to prove rash and negligent act of respondents. The petitioners have examined wife of the deceased as PW1, who has proved on record the mode and manner in which the said accident took place. She has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in petition.
22. The respondent no.1 & respondent no.2 have appeared, through their counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners in this petition. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 has submitted that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and in fact the said motorcycle has hit the offending vehicle from behind.
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 21
23. It is the contention of ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the deceased has suffered injuries in the said accident on 08.05.2022 and he was declared "brought dead" by the Doctors. It is further the contention of ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 in their pleadings has himself admitted that accident was occurred however, the offending vehicle was in stationery position, however, no evidence in support of this contention is brought on record. Therefore, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
24. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioners, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1 as a result of which the deceased has expired. Needless to say, the injuries mentioned in the postmortem of the deceased are consistent with the injuries which are sustained by deceased resulting into his death.
25. Furthermore, it is an established principle of law that in a claim petition under the Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. In case of Kaushnamma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited" (2001) 2 SCC 9, it was inter alia held by the MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 21 Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act.
26. The deceased was victim of accident and the testimony of the witness against the driver of offending vehicle has been corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent no.1 was present on the spot at the time of accident, therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence.
27. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
28. Though not quoted, reliance is placed upon Sunita & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 2019 SCC Online SC 195, wherein, it has been observed as under :
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 21 "20.....
11. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be ignored only on the basis of a postmortem report visavis the averments made in a claim petition.
XXXXX
14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3.
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties." (emphasis supplied) The Court restated the legal position that the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with the motor accident cases. Even in that case, the view taken by the High Court to reverse similar findings, recorded by the Tribunal was set aside."
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 21 has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no.1/driver is clearly visible and as such, he was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 /COMPENSATION
30. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
31. As already stated above, the claimants/ petitioner no.1/Beemala is the wife, petitioner no.2 Ashok Kumar/son, petitioner no.3 Kapil/son, petitioner no.4 Kuldeep/son of the deceased. PW1/Beemala wife of the deceased has testified that the deceased was working as Raj Mistri, and was earning Rs. 30,000/ MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 21 per month. The date of birth as per the Aadhar Card of the deceased is 10.04.1962 and the deceased was aged about 60 years as on the date of the accident. It has been testified by PW1 that the deceased was working as Raj Mistri, and earning an amount of Rs. 30,000/ per month.
32. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the petitioners, as per the Aadhar Card are the residents of Sonipat Haryana (except petitioner no.2/Ashok Kumar) therefore the minimum wages of the Haryana will be applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Kirti & Anr. Etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. passd in Civil App. No. 1920/2021.
33. This Tribunal deems it appropriate that as the petitioners are the residents of Sonipat, Haryana, therefore, the income of the deceased should be assessed as per the prevailing Minimum Wages of Haryana as on the date of the said accident. However, no evidence has been led on behalf of the petitioner in order to prove that deceased was working as Raj Mistri and falls in the category of skilled labour, therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, has been treated as that of "unskilled person" and as on the date of accident i.e. 08.05.2022, the minimum wages for skilled labour in Haryana is Rs.10,243.28 per month. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 21
34. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents i.e. Aadhar Card DOB of deceased is 10.04.1962 and age of the deceased is taken as 60 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "9" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
35. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 60 years and 28 days of age at the time of accident, therefore, he is not entitled for the future prospects in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
36. Since, the deceased was married and there are four claimants i.e. / petitioner No.1/wife and petitioners no. 2 to 4 are the sons), there has to be deduction of "1/4", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No. (Rs.)
1 Monthly Income of deceased 10,243.28
Sh.Ramniwash (A)
2 Add: Future prospects Nil
3 Less: Personal expenses of deceased 2560.82 [(A)+ (B)] / 4= ©
@ one fourth (¼) (C)
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022)
Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 21 4 Monthly loss of dependency (D) 12,804.1 [(A)+(B)](C)= (D) 5 Annual Loss of dependency (E) 1,53,649.2 (D) x 12 = (E) 6 Multiplier @ 9 7 Total Loss of dependency (F) 13,82,842.8 (E) x 9 (multiplier)= (F) Rounded Off to: 13,83,000 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
37. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
38. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, I am of the considered opinion that the parents are entitled for payment of Rs.40,000/ each towards MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 21 loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ (Rs.40,000/ x 4) is awarded to the petitioners under this head. LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
39. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/ is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 16,500/ is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 13,83,000
2 Loss of Consortium 1,60,000
(Rs.40,000 x 4)
3 Loss of Estate & Funeral 33,000
Expenses (@ 16,500/ each)
TOTAL 15,76,000/
40. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount.
41. Respondent no.1 has in his pleadings submitted that the offending vehicle was not being driven by him, however, the same was in stationery position and in fact the said motorcycle hit the offending vehicle from behind. He has stated that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself.
MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 21
42. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of said accident, therefore respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify the petitioners.
43. It has also been the case of respondent no.3, that the offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent no.3.
44. Therefore, from the testimony of PW1 and the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to indemnify compensation to the petitioners. In view of the findings on issue above, issue no.2 is disposed off.
ISSUE No.3: RELIEF
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs.15,76,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 6.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no.3/insurance company w.e.f the date of filing of the petition i.e. 09.06.2022 till the date of its realization in terms of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011.
APPORTIONMENT
46. The statement of petitioner No.1 to petitioner no.4 in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 16.02.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent nos. 2, respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 have given their statement on 16.02.2023, that they have no MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 21 objection in case their share may be awarded in the name of respondent no.1 Smt. Beemala. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the amount is disbursed as follows :
(a) petitioner No.1/Smt. Beemala (Wife of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.15,76,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and Out of share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to her in her MACT Saving Bank Account No. 0809101700007832, Punjab National Bank, Delhi, having IFSC Code PUNB0080910 and the remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
47. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 21 System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
48. Respondent no.3/Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd., is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioners in MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 21 their aforesaid saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. Copy of the award be given dasti to petitioner/claimant. Copy of Award be also sent to the respondent no.3 through Counsel for information and compliance.
49. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form no. V and Form IV A are annexed as Annexure A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
50. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 27.03.2023.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.
(DR. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA) ADJ1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 500/2022 (FIR no. 148/2022) Beemala & Ors. v. Jatin Kumar Bhardwaj & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 21