Delhi District Court
Mehandi Hassan And Ors vs Ravi And Ors on 31 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDESH KUMAR-II:
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. : 2115/19
MEHANDI HASAN AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS.
CNR No. DLST01-006972-2019
1. Mehandi Hasan ...father of the deceased
S/o Jagira
2. Aamna
W/o Mehandi Hasan ...mother of the deceased
Both resident of
Akhtyarpur Bhur,
Amroha, Dingra, Uttar Pradesh-244231
...... Petitioners
MACT No. : 2116/19
AAMNA AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS.
CNR No. DLST01-006973-2019
1. Aamna
W/o Mehandi Hasan ...mother of the deceased
2. Mehandi Hasan ...father of the deceased
Both resident of
Akhtyarpur Bhur,
Amroha, Dingra, Uttar Pradesh-244231
...... Petitioners
MACT/2115/19
Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19
Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19
Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19
Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 1 of 36
MACT NO. : 2118/19
BALBEER SINGH VS. RAVI AND ORS.
CNR No. DLST01-006976-2019
1. Balbeer Singh
S/o Sh. Nathu Singh ...father of the deceased
2. Suman Devi
S/o Sh. Balbeer Singh ...mother of the deceased
3. Reena
W/o Late Rajkumar ...wife of the deceased
4. Naksh
S/o Late Rajkumar ...son of the deceased
5. Vaishnavi
D/o Late Rajkumar ...Daughter of deceased
All are resident of :-
Village. Bakabad, Bachhraon,
Amroha, UP ...... Petitioners
MACT No. : 2119/19
JAREEF VS. RAVI AND ORS.
CNR No. DLST01-006977-2019
1. Jareef
S/o Sarif Ali .... father of the deceased
2. Tasleema
W/o Jareef .... mother of the deceased
Both are resident of
R/o vill. Sirsa Jatt Vasipur,
Bachhraon, Amroha, UP ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ravi S/o Sh. Ajad Singh
R/o Village 535 Main Bawana Road
Sahibabad, Daulatpur,
MACT/2115/19
Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19
Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19
Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19
Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 2 of 36
New Delhi - 110042 ..owner of car no. DL-1ZA-0441
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Shop No. 13 DDA Market, 1st Floor,
Yusuf Sarai,
New Delhi - 110029. ..insurer of car no.DL-1ZA-0441
3. Bheekam Singh
S/o Sh. Vidhya Ram
R/o Gadi Kapeelpur the. Raja Khera
Distt. Dholpur -328001,
Rajasthan ..driver of truck no. RJ-11GA-9844
4. Rajveer Singh
S/o Sh. Govardhan Singh
R/o Sarai Mluk Gwalior Road,
Agra ..owner of truck no. RJ-11GA-9844
5. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.
Shakuntla Building, 59, 5th Floor 514, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 1100019 .. insurer of truck no. RJ-11GA-9844
......Respondents
Date of Institution :11.10.2019
Date of reserving of
judgment/order : 25.08.2023
Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2023
JUDGMENT:
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of four claim petitions bearing no.(s) 2115/19, 2116/19, 2118/19 and 2119/19 under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') filed by LRs of the deceased for claiming compensation for the MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 3 of 36fatal injuries sustained by Nafees, Khurshid, Raj Kumar and Suhel in a road accident on 12.09.2019 at about 4.00 am opposite JMS Degree College Hapur due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. RJ-11GA-9844 being driven by respondent no. 3, owned by respondent no. 4 and insured with the respondent no.5.
2. The brief facts of the case as per petitions are that on 12.09.2019 at 4:00 AM Khurshid was driving car no. DL1ZA0441 from Sirsa Jatt Vasipur Bachhoraon Amroha to Delhi along with his brother Nafees, Suhel and friend Raj Kumar. When they reached on highway opposite JMS College Hapur, a truck no. RJ11-GA-9844 was standing on the road without night light, night indicator and due to darkness car collided with truck from behind and all occupants sustained fatal injuries in the accident.
3. Notices were sent to the Respondents. Respondent no.(s) 2 and 5 have filed their written submissions on record. The Respondent no(s). 1,3,4 and 5 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.05.2022.
4. The Respondent no. 2/ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. stated in its written statement that accident had been caused due to the offending truck which was wrongly and negligently parked in the middle of the road and there was no negligence on the part of insured vehicle i.e car thus, the respondent no. 2 is not liable to pay MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 4 of 36any compensation.
5. The respondent no. 5/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. stated in its written statement that car hit the offending truck on the backside which was stationary on the pavement away from the road taking all precautionary measures that shows that the car's driver was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and is sole responsible for the accident. The car driver was also not holding proper DL and authorized passenger beyond permissible limit and as such contributory negligence on the part of the driver cannot be ruled out. However, it was admitted that policy USGI/POSWEB/ 0184268/00/000 was issued in the name of Rajveer Singh which was valid from 08/01/2019 to 07/02/2020.
6. For just adjudication of the case, issues were framed on 26.05.2022 by my Ld. Predecessor which are as follows :-
1) Whether, the deceased persons namely Suhel S/o Jareef, Raj Kumar, Khurshid S/o Mehandi Hasan and Nafees S/o mehandi Hasan succumbed to the injuries in a road accident on 12.09.2019 at about 4.00 am at opposite JMS Degree College Hapur due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
RJ-11GA-9844 being driven by respondent no. 3, owned by respondent no. 4 and insured with the respondent no.5.
2) In case, issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative then to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
3) Relief.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 5 of 367. I have heard Ld. counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. In order to establish their claims, the petitioners examined PW Mehandi Hasan (father of the deceased Nafees) in MACT No. 2115/19, PW Aamna (mother of the deceased Khurshid) in MACT No. 2116/19, PW Balbeer Singh (father of the deceased Raj Kumar) in MACT no. 2118/19, PW Sh. Rakesh Kumar (employer of the deceased Raj Kumar) in MACT no. 2118/19, Sh. Jareef (father of the deceased Suhel) in MACT No. 2119/19. Sh. Anurag Kumar was examined as PW2 in all the petitions being an eye witness.
10. The respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunity being given.
11. PW1 Mehandi Hasan (in MACT No.2115/2019) is the father of the deceased Nafees who deposed that on 12.092019 at 4:00 a.m Nafees was travelling in car no. DL 1Z 0441 from Sirsa Jatt Vasipur MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 6 of 36Bachhoraon Amroha to Delhi along with his friends. When car no. DL 1Z A 0441 reached on high way, opposite JMS College Harpur. A mechanically unfit Truck no. RJ-11-GA-9844 was standing on the road in the dark night without night light, truck driver did not use night indicator. Due to darkness, car driver could not see truck no. RJ-11-GA-9844 and collided with truck. Nafees sustained injuries in this accident and died on spot. Nafees was working as a carpenter in Delhi and earned 30,000/ month. PW1 has relied upon following documents:-
-Certified copy of CHARGESHEET/ FIR PMR/ Death Certificate/ Site plan/ Mechanical Report - EX-PW-1/1.
-Photocopy UID/ Pan Card of petitioners. EX-PW-1/2.
-Photocopy of UID of Deceased EX-PW-1/3.
In his cross examination by learned counsel of respondent no. 2, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident.
12. PW1 Aamna (in MACT No. 2116/19) is the mother of deceased Khurshid who also deposed on the similar lines as her claim. She has relied upon following documents:-
- Certified copy of charge-sheet Ex.PW1/1.
-Photocopy of Aadhar card and PA N card Ex.PW1/2.
-Photocopy of aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW1/3.
-Driving licence of Khursheed Ex.PW1/4.
In her cross-examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 7 of 36
13. PW2 Sh. Anurag Kumar (eye witness) deposed that on 12.09.2019 at 4.00 AM he was walking on the high way opposite JMS college Hapur. A car bearing no. DL-1ZA-0441 came from Garh side at a normal speed of 40 KMPH when the car reached on high way opposite JMS college Hapur, a mechanically unfit truck no. RJ11GA
-9844 was standing on the road in the dark night without blowing its light and indicator. Truck driver has parked his truck negligently. Due to darkness, car driver could not see the truck and collided with the truck. All the occupants Nafees, Khursheed, Suhail Munnavar, Ikrar and Raj Kumar sustained injuries in this accident and died on the spot.
In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2, he stated that he has seen the accident. He was crossing the road from divider. Police has not recorded his statement. Police had called him in PS but he has not gone there. The truck was parked in the middle of the road. One Balvir, relative of deceased met him after the accident and requested him to give the statement in the court. He denied the suggestion that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.
14. PW Balbeer Singh (in MACT No. 2118/19) is the father of the deceased Raj Kumar who deposed on the similar lines of his claim and relied upon the following documents:-
• Certified copy of chargesheet Ex.PW1/1. • Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN Card Ex.PW1/2 (colly). • Photocopy of aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW1/3. MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 8 of 36
• Education certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/4. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident.
15. PW Sh. Rakesh Kumar (in MACT No. 2118/19) (employer of the deceased Raj Kumar) was the Manager of AGILE Airport Service. He was a summoned witness and relied upon the following documents:-
• Authority letter Ex.PW3/1• Confirmation of employment letter issued by the ofice Ex.PW3/2.
• Salary certificate for the month of June 2019 to August 2019 Ex.PW3/3.
• Copy of the aadhar card Ex.PW3/4. • Copy of ID Card issued from the office Ex.PW3/5.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had joined the services of the office on 19.10.2018. The net salary of the deceased was Rs.14000/- per month excluding overtime which was variable.
16. PW1 Jareef (in MACT No. 2119/19) is the father of the deceased Suhel who also deposed on the lines of his claim. He has relied upon the following documents:-
• Certified copy of chargesheet Ex.PW1/1. • Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card Ex.PW1/2 (colly) • Photocopy of aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW1/3. • Driving licence of deceased Ex.PW1/4.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an eye MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 9 of 36
witness to the accident.
17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the evidence brought on record coupled with the criminal record placed, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the driver of the offending vehicle who was responsible for causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
18. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2/ insurance company/ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. also stated that the accident had been caused due to the truck which was wrongly and negligently parked in the middle of the road and there was no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle i.e. car, thus the respondent no. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 5/Universal Sompo stated that it was the driver of the car who was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the truck from behind. So the respondent no. 5 is not liable to pay any compensation.
20. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 10 of 36Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act. Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, burden is on the claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
21. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 until proved to be contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents. The fact that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver who also received fatal injuries in the said accident is not controverted. Even the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1.
22. PW2 Anurag Kumar who is an eye witness has clearly deposed MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 11 of 36that the driver of the offending truck has parked the truck in the middle of the road without night light and indicator and due to darkness the car driver could not see the truck and collided with the truck. This witness was not cross-examined by the respondent no. 5/Universal Sompo General Insurance who was insurer of the truck. No other version of accident is explained or proved on record except the one narrated by the PW2 Anurag. None of the respondents have led any evidence to prove otherwise than the version of the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 has not led any evidence to prove its case that the car driver was driving his car rashly and negligently. The driver of the truck which was parked in the middle of the road could have been the best witness for the respondent no. 5 to examine in this matter. He could have supported the case of the insurance company. However, he was never examined. Hence, the respondent no. 5/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. has failed to produce the best evidence available. Further, it has never been disputed by any of the party that the offending truck was mechanically unfit at the time of accident and was parked in the road. Furthermore, as the accident has taken place at night and the truck was parked on the road without night light and without any indicator/parking light. It was the driver of the truck who was negligent in his act.
23. On the basis of above observation and discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to the negligence of respondent no. 3/ Bheekam Singh who parked his truck in the middle MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 12 of 36of the road. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 224. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation is to be awarded to the claimants and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
25. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 3 / Bheekam Singh and owned by respondent no.4/Rajveer Singh so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.5/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, respondent no. 5/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF NAFEES KHAN IN MACT NO. 2115/19
26. As decided in issue no. 1, Nafees died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of deceased Nafees. The petitioners must be MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 13 of 36dependent upon deceased being the parents of the deceased and shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amount shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses. Loss of funeral expenses have been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
27. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Therefore, on the following heads, compensation is MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 14 of 36to be awarded:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
[44,000 x 2]
2 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
28. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Nafees was un-married, who left behind his mother and father as his legal heirs. As per the deceased's aadhar card, the deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '17'.
29. PW-1 Mehandi Hasan stated that the deceased Nafees was residing at Goyala Dairy, Delhi. His son used to work as carpenter and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month, however he has not filed any documents to show income of his deceased son.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 15 of 3630. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, however has placed on record voter I card which shows the address of the deceased 17 H Block Phase -I, Qutub vihar, Goyla Dairy, Delhi, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled worker in Delhi which was Rs.14,468/- at the time of accident.
31. Here, the deceased was un-married. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that in regard to the bachelor, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. As the deceased was about 26 years at the time of accident, therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '17'.
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 26 years of age therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.20,255/- (Rs.14,468/- + 14,468/- x 40 /
100). As the deceased was admittedly unmarried, therefore, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses being the bachelor. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,128/-.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 16 of 36Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,66,112/- (Rs.10,128/- x 12 x 17). I therefore, award Rs.20,66,112/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
33. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners comes as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.20,66,112/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
[44,000x2(claimants)] = Rs.88000/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 16,500/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 16,500/-
============
TOTAL = Rs.21,87,112/-
============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF KHURSHID IN AAMNA AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS. IN MACT NO.2116/19.
34. As decided in issue no. 1, Khurshid died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of deceased Khurshid. The petitioners must be dependent upon deceased being the parents of the deceased and shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 17 of 36held that following amount shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses. Loss of funeral expenses have been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
35. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Therefore, on the following heads, compensation is to be awarded:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-
[44,000 x 2]
2 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
3 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
MACT/2115/19
Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 18 of 3636. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Khurshid was un-married, who left behind his mother and father as his legal heirs. As per the deceased's aadhar card, the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
37. PW-1 Aamna stated that the deceased Khurshid was doing job of driver in Delhi and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, however she has not filed any documents to show income of her deceased son.
38. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP which was Rs.8013/- at the time of accident.
39. Here, the deceased Khurshid was also un-married. It was held MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 19 of 36in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that in regard to the bachelor, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. As per the aadhar card of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 01.01.1997 and the accident was happened on 12.09.2019, the deceased was about 22 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 22 years of age therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,218/- (Rs.8013/- + 8013/- x 40 / 100). As the deceased was admittedly unmarried, therefore, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses being the bachelor. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,609/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,11,544/- (Rs.5609/- x 12 x 18). I therefore, award Rs.12,11,544/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
41. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners comes as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.12,11,544/- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM [44,000x2(claimants)] = Rs.88000/- MACT/2115/19
Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 20 of 36 FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 16,500/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 16,500/-
============
TOTAL = Rs.13,32,544/-
============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF RAJ KUMAR IN MACT NO.2118/19 BALBEER SINGH AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS..
42. As decided in issue no. 1, Raj Kumar died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Raj Kumar. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Loss of funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
43. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 21 of 363093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Therefore, in the present case, all the five petitioners being the father, mother, wife and two children of the deceased are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 2,20,000/-
[44,000 x 5]
2 Funeral Expenses 16,500/-
3 Loss of Estate 16,500/-
44. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 22 of 36Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Raj Kumar was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, both children, father and mother. The age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '17'.
45. PW1 Balbeer Singh (father of the deceased Raj Kumar) stated in his evidence that at the time of accident deceased Raj Kumar was employed in AGILE Airport Service IGI Airport room no. 25 T-2 and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He was also examined PW3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Manager, AGILE Airport Services who proved the salary certificate of the deceased. He stated in his cross-examination that the net salary of the deceased was Rs.14000/- per month excluding overtime which was variable. Therefore, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.14000/- per month for assessment of compensation.
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 28 years of age, therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 23 of 36of the deceased comes to Rs.19,600/- (14,000/- + 14000/- x 40 / 100). All four legal heirs are dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.14,700/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.29,98,800/- (Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 17). I therefore, award Rs.29,98,800/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
47. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the LRs of the deceased Raj Kumar is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs. 29,98,800/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 16,500/-
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 16,500/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs. 2,20,000/-
=============
Total = Rs.32,51,800
=============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF SUHEL IN MACT NO. 2119/19 JAREEF VS RAVI AND ORS.
48. As decided in issue no. 1, Suhel died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of deceased Suhel. The petitioners must be dependent upon deceased being the parents of the deceased and shall MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 24 of 36be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amount shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the following heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses. Loss of funeral expenses have been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
49. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Therefore, on the following heads, compensation is to be awarded:-
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 25 of 36
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
[44,000 x 2]
2 Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
3 Loss of Estate Rs.16500/-
50. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule.
Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Suhel was un-married, who left behind his mother and father as his legal heirs. As per the deceased's aadhar card, the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
51. PW-1 Jareef stated that the deceased Suhel was doing job of medicine supply in Delhi and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month at the time of accident. However he has not filed any documents to prove income of his deceased son.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 26 of 3652. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, however has placed on record copy of aadhar card which shows the address of the deceased of UP, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP which was Rs.8013/- at the time of accident.
53. Here, the deceased Suhel was also un-married. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that in regard to the bachelor, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. As per the aadhar card of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 01.04.2001 and the accident was happened on 12.09.2019, the deceased was about 18 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
54. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 18 years of age therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,218/- (Rs.8013/- + 8013/- x 40 / 100). As the deceased was admittedly unmarried, therefore, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses being the bachelor.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 27 of 36After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,609/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,11,544/- (Rs.5,609 x 12 x 18). I therefore, award Rs.12,11,544/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
55. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners comes as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.12,11,544/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
[44,000x2(claimants)] = Rs.88000/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 16,500/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 16,500/-
============
TOTAL = Rs.13,32,544/-
============
R E LI EF
56. In view of my findings, in MACT no. 2115/19, I award Rs.21,87,112/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Twelve) to the LRs of the deceased Nafees as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT no. 2116/19, I award Rs.13,32,544/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four) to the LRs of the deceased Khurshid as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT no. 2118/19, I award Rs.32,51,800/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred) to the LRs of the MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 28 of 36deceased Raj Kumar as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT no. 2119/19, I award Rs.13,32,544/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four) to the LRs of the deceased Suhel as compensation alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
IN MACT NO. 2115/19 MEHANDI HASAN AND ORS.
VS. RAVI AND ORS.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Mehandi Hasan i.e. father of the deceased Nafees) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being father of the deceased. Amount be released to him.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2 Ms. Aamna i.e. mother of deceased Nafees) A sum of Rs.19,87,112/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 03 years.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 29 of 36
• Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 08 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
IN MACT NO. 2116/19 AAMNA AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Ms. Aamna i.e. mother of the deceased Khurshid) A sum of Rs.11,32,544/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 04 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2 Sh. Mehandi Hasan i.e. father of the deceased Khurshid) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being father of the deceased. Amount MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 30 of 36
be released to him.
IN MACT NO. 2118/19 BALBEER SINGH AND ORS.
VS. RAVI AND ORS.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Balbeer Singh i.e. father of the deceased Ravi Kumar) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being father of the deceased. Amount be released to him.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2 Smt. Suman Devi i.e. mother of the deceased Ravi Kumar) A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 3 Smt. Reena i.e. wife of the deceased Ravi Kumar) A sum of Rs.15,51,800/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.3 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 31 of 36
Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 08 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 09 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s) 4 and 5 Mr. Naksh and Ms. Vaishnavi i.e. children of the deceased Ravi Kumar) A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each along-with the proportionate interest are awarded to the petitioner no(s)4 and 5 being children of the deceased. The said amount are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
IN MACT NO. 2119/19 JAREEF AND ORS. VS. RAVI AND ORS (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Sh. Jareef i.e. father of the deceased Suhel) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being father of the deceased. Amount be released to him.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 32 of 36(In the share of Petitioner no. 2 Smt. Tasleema i.e. mother of the deceased Suhel) A sum of Rs.11,32,544/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 04 years.
Remaining amount be released to her. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent no.5/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the respondent no.4 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 33 of 36
The respondent no.5/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP) Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:-
The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 34 of 36
Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants/petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondent no.5 in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors. MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.Page No. 35 of 36
is directed not to release any amount to the petitioners from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/ NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioners of the bank nearest to their place of residence.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 5/Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.
The respondent no. 5 is directed to file compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
The respondent no.5 shall intimate the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the amount in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.5 on 06.10.2023.
Pronounced in the open Court on 31st August 2023 (SUDESH KUMAR-II) Presiding Officer : MACT (South) Saket Courts : New Delhi MACT/2115/19 Mehandi Hasan and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2116/19 Aamna and ors. vs. Ravi and Ors.
MACT/2118/19 Balbeer Singh vs. Ravi and ors.
MACT/2119/19 Jareef vs. Ravi and ors.
Page No. 36 of 36