Delhi District Court
Smt. Shukla Devi vs Sh. Anil Mahto on 16 February, 2023
MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5886/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT010028602015
Smt. Shukla Devi ,
W/o Sh. Kishor Mahto,
R/o B602, J.J. Colony,
Suraj Park, B Block,
Sector - 18, Rohini,
Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Anil Mahto,
S/o Sh. Sathu Mahto,
R/o Mahesha Patakpur,
PS. Runni Shed Pur,
District Sitamarhi,
Bihar.
(Driver)
2. Shri Krishna Transportation & Financial Services,
At Khasra No. 1126. Gali No. 17,
Village Rithala,
Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
A2/3, Lusa Tower,
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 1 of 24
MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 Date of Institution : 15.10.2015 Date of Arguments : 16.02.2023 Date of Judgment : 16.02.2023 APPEARENCES:
Sh. Amresh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/Lr of deceased. None for driver and owner.
Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD:
1. The petitioners have filed the present claim petition U/s 166/140 M.V Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) from the date of accident till its realization for the fatal injury sustained by Sh. Rahul (dec eased in the present case), aged about 17 years in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 13.09.2014 at about 12:15 AM near Bharti Line Hotel, Pandebara, PS. Chauparan, District Hazari Bagh, Jharkhand involving Truck bearing registration no. HR55K6486 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver/respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner.
2. It is averred in the claim petition that the accident had taken place on 13.09.2014 at about 12:15 AM, near Bharti Line Hotel, Pandebara, PS. Chauparan, District Hazari Bagh, Jharkhand involving the offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver/Respondent no. 1 at a very high Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 2 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 speed, in a rash and negligent manner. It is further averred that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver as he tried to overtake another vehicle at a very high speed in negligent manner and in that process, accident took place and Sh. Rahul suffered fatal injuries. After the accident, he was removed to Primary Hospital, Chauparan and during the course of his treatment, he expired. FIR No. 141/14 u/s. 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Chauparan with regard to the said accident. It is further averred that deceased aged about 17 years was in the employment of respondent no. 2 as Helper on the offending vehicle and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondent no. 1 i.e. driver failed to file his WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunity. Consequently, his defence was struck off vide order dated 26.04.2016, passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. In his written statement, the respondent no. 2 i.e. registered owner raised preliminary objection that it had given the offending vehicle to the petitioner on lease/contract basis @ 24,600/ per month on 06.08.2010 and an agreement in this regard was made and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, it was claimed that offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident.
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 3 of 24MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 On merits, it denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. In its written statement, the respondent no.3/insurance company did not raise any statutory defence provided u/s. 149(2) M.V. Act. However, it has been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor vide order dated 26.04.2016:
1. Whether the deceased Mst Rahul suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 13.09.2014 at 12:15 am, near Bharti Line Hotel, Pande Bara, PS Chauparan, District Hazari Bagh, within the jurisdiction of PS. Chauparan, due to rashness and negligence on the part of the R1 who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR55K 6486, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners/Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In support of her claim, the petitioner has examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Smt. Shukla Devi (mother of deceased) and PE was closed vide order dated 04.02.2020. On the other hand, no evidence was Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 4 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 adduced by any of the respondents and their respective evidence was also closed vide order dated 04.02.2020.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsel for the petitioners. I have also gone through the record.
Issue No. 19. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for insurance company raised an objection to the maintainability of the claim petition and disputed liability of insurance company to pay the compensation amount in this case. Ld. Counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that since the deceased in the present case was the son of petitioner who was actually in possession of offending vehicle, she is not entitle for compensation in the present case. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner can not be deprived of her right just on the ground that she had signed a Lease Agreement, the contents of which she even did not know at the time of signing of same as she is an illiterate lady. He further argued that the said documents were the procured documents by respondent no. 2 about 23 years prior to the date of accident.
10. Before arriving at any conclusion, it is relevant to discuss the following points which can be helpful in deciding the issue of maintainability. The following points are: Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 5 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
a) Purpose of purchase of nonjudicial stamp paper: It is nowhere mentioned on the stamp paper on which alleged lease was carried out as to for what purpose the same was purchased by Sh. Krishan Pal, proprietor of respondent no. 2. It has also not been proved by respondent no. 2 that the same was purchased for the purpose of execution of lease agreement with petitioner with regard to offending vehicle.
b) Lease was done after six months of purchase of stamp paper: It may be noted here that the date of purchase of stamp paper used for execution of lease agreement is mentioned as 15.02.2010, whereas the lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 on 06.08.2010 i.e. after about 6 months of the purchase of stamp paper.
c) Notarization/Registration of Lease Agreement: It is pertinent to mention here that the lease agreement Ex. PW1/R1 was neither registered nor got notarized by respondent no. 2 which casts doubt about the authenticity of the said document. It is the duty of respondent no. 2 to get the lease agreement registered which is not the case herein. Thus, the same can not be considered as valid/genuine document.
d) Guarantor: Though, there is a column of guarantor on each page of lease agreement but the same does not bear the signatures of guarantor on any of the pages of it which again casts doubt about the authenticity of the said document.
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 6 of 24MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
e) Stamp vendor not examined by the respondent no. 2: In order to prove the plea raised by the respondent no. 2 with regard to execution of lease agreement with petitioner, it was its duty to have examined the stamp vendor who had issued the stamp paper purchased by it which has not been done by respondent no. 2 which also creates doubt about the story of respondent no. 2.
f) Information to the concerned authority/insurance company regarding execution of lease agreement: In the present case, the respondent no. 2 did not inform about the execution of lease agreement with petitioner to concerned Transport Authority which was an essential step to be followed by it. Moreover, it had also not intimated the insurance company about the lease agreement.
11. The above mentioned points make alleged lease agreement Ex. PW1/R1 inadmissible document and consequently even the alleged possession letter is also held to be a bogous document.
12. The testimony of PW1 is relevant for deciding the issue no.1. PW1 Smt. Shukla Devi (mother of deceased) has deposed on the similar lines of averments made in the claim petition in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). She has relied upon the following documents: Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 7 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 Serial Description of Remarks No. documents
1. Certified copies of criminal Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
case record PW1/122. Original certificate in Ex. PW1/13 respect of age of deceased Rahul
3. Copy of her voter I Card Ex. PW1/14
4. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Mark PW1/15 5. Copy of her bank Mark PW1/16 passbook
13. During her crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, she admitted that she was not an eyewitness of the accident in question.
14. Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that PW1 Smt. Subh Kala Devi is not an eye witness of the accident and no eye witness has been examined by petitioners during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to the negligent act of driver/R1.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has heavily relied upon the criminal case record in order to bring home his point that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Respondent no. 1. He further argued that respondent Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 8 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 no. 1 Sh. Anil Mehto was also chargesheeted by police for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establishes that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
16. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
17. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Anil Mehto (respondent no.1) has been charge sheeted by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
18. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased. Copy of PM Report (which is part of criminal case record) would show that cause of death of deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock. The injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of external injuries of the Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 9 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 said report, are also consistent with the injuries which are sustained in road traffic accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
19. The copy of FIR (which is part of criminal case record), would show that same was registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singh on 13.09.2014. The contents of said FIR would show that same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW1 during the course of inquiry have been mentioned in the said FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not have any kind of ill will or enmity with the respondents no. 1 & 2 so as to falsely implicate them in criminal case or to depose falsely against them during the course of inquiry.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Sh. Rahul had sustained fatal injury in road accident which took place on 13.09.2014 at about 12:15 AM near Bharti Line Hotel, Pandebara, PS. Chauparan, District Hazari Bagh, Jharkhand, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 221. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 10 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
22. The claimant/petitioner is the mother of deceased. PW1 Smt. Shukla Devi (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged about 17 years at the time of accident. During her cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 2/registered owner, she deposed that the name of her father was Sh. Bilas Mehto. She denied the suggestion that respondent no. 1 was her relative or that he was known to her prior to the date of accident. She further denied the suggestion that respondent no. 1 was employed as driver by her on the offending vehicle as on the date of accident or that it is not liable to pay any compensation amount due to said reason. She denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was in her possession. During her crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company, she deposed that deceased had studied upto 5th class. She denied the suggestion that deceased was 13 years old at the time of accident. She deposed that she could not produce any documentary proof to show that deceased was working as Helper on the offending vehicle or that he was not earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working at all or that he was not earning Rs. 10,000/per month. She further denied the suggestion that she had filed Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 11 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 false claim petition in order to seek compensation amount from the respondents or that she was not entitled to any compensation from the respondents as the offending vehicle was lying in her own possession or that there was no negligence on the part of insured.
23. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that loss of dependency may be calculated as per the minimum wages of an unskilled person prevalent in the relevant year.
24. It is relevant to mention here that as per the claim petition, deceased was aged about 17 years at the time of accident. This fact is duly corroborated by document Ex. PW1/13 relied upon by the petitioner in her evidence. One can very well imagine the plight of the mother who had unfortunately lost her only son who was coming of age. It goes without saying that parents put their hard work and pain in bringing up their child and they have special kind of attachment and bonding with their child and they shower their entire love and affection upon the said child, having ray of hope that their only son would become their support in the need of hour i.e. in their old age as well as in situation requiring immediate care and medical help to them. Thus, no amount of money would be sufficient to alleviate the sufferings which would have been caused to the parents like the petitioners herein. While saying so, I am fortified by the decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a judgment passed in case titled "Mira Devi & Anr., Rahul Vs. Mohd. Khalil & Ors.", in MAC Appeal Nos. 1129/2017, Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 12 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 174/2018, decided on 04.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court had assessed the income of deceased on minimum wages.
25. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar as the deceased Prateek Kumar in the said case was also minor at the time of accident. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides and in the light of aforesaid discussion, I find substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that the income of deceased should be assessed on minimum wages of an unskilled person as he was working as Helper on the offending vehicle. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act were Rs. 8,554/ per month as on the date of accident i.e. 13.09.2014.
26. In the document (Ex. PW1/13) of deceased, his age is mentioned as 17 years. Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 17 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
27. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 13 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 well as in view of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
28. It is relevant to note here that there is only one petitioner in the present case i.e. mother of deceased. Since, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 12,93,364.80 (Rs. 8,554/ X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 12,93,000/ (rounded off)is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
29. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 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", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 14 of 24MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
30. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/mother of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 44,000/towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 44,000/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
31. 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/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 12,93,000/
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 44,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 33,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 13,70,000/ Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 15 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
32. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. While opening the arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no. 2 as on the date of accident and therefore, he is equally liable to pay the compensation amount under the law.
33. In order to have better appreciation of the respective submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act. Same reads as under: "50. Transfer of ownership.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,
(a) the transferor shall,
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within fortyfive days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in subclause(i) (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained. Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 16 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 (I) the receipt obtained under subsection (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where
(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under subsection (2) (hereafter in Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 17 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under subsection (5):
Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.
(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(6) On receipt of a report under subsection (1), or an application under subsection (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority."
34. It is quite clear from the bare perusal of the provision reproduced herein above that sub section (1) thereof casts duty upon transferor of any motor vehicle to give intimation alongwith supporting documents regarding sale of said vehicle to the Registering Authority within 14 days of the date of first transfer. It also casts duty upon transferor to Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 18 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 report within 30 days of transfer, the factum of transfer of any such vehicle to the concerned Registering Authority. Sub Section (2) thereof is admittedly not relevant in this case. According to Sub Section (3) thereof, any default on the part of transferor or transferee to report the factum of transfer to the Registering Authority within the stipulated period, may entail penalty upon them as prescribed therein. Sub Sections (4) and (5) also deal about the imposition of the penalty. Sub Section (6) provides that on receipt of application under Sub Section (2), the Registering Authority may allow transfer of ownership of such vehicle to be entered in the Certificate of Registration and Sub Section (7) provides that after allowing transfer of ownership of vehicle, Registering Authority shall communicate the same to the transferor and also to the original Registering Authority, if it is not original Registering Authority.
35. Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, provides the procedure to be followed at the time of transfer of any motor vehicle by its registered owner to any other person.
36. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The respondent no. 2 cannot avoid to pay compensation amount by taking recourse to the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act and / or Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules. It is an admitted position on record that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of offending vehicle as on the date of accident in question. This fact is duly admitted by respondent no. 2 itself in its written statement. The respondent no. 2 has failed to comply Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 19 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 with the requirements of Section 50 (1) (a) (i) of M.V Act inasmuch as he failed to send any written intimation either to Registration Authority or even to the transferee, as provided therein.
37. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the provision contained in Section 2 (30) of M.V Act, which defines the term 'owner' to mean a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and in case of minor, the guardian of such minor and in case where the motor vehicle is subject of Hire Purchase Agreement or Agreement of Lease or Agreement of Hypothecation, the person in whose possession such vehicle is, as per the said agreement. The Act of 1988 has provided in the first part of Section 2(30) that the owner would be the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered. Where such a person is a minor the guardian of the minor would be the owner. In relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of an agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement would be the owner. The latter part of the definition is in the nature of an exception which applies where the motor vehicle is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or of an agreement of lease or hypothecation.
Otherwise the definition stipulates that for the purposes of the Act, the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is treated as the owner.
38. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 20 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
39. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 13,70,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f date of filing petition i.e. 15.10.2015 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lr of deceased/petitioner and against the respondents(Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
40. Statements of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 09.02.2021. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of her statement, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only), shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 4989000100083831 with Punjab National Bank, Sector - 18, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code PUNB0498900 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 21 of 24MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
41. 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 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 to 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. The b9%ank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(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.
Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 22 of 24MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023
(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.
42. Respondent no. 3/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer Rs. 5,70,000/ immediately to aforesaid petitioner in her aforesaid saving bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 23 of 24 MACP No. 5886/16 FIR No. 141/14 DOD:16.02.2023 petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XV & XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 05.04.2023 (VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 24 pages and each page is signed by me.
(VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Shukla Devi Vs. Anil Mahto & Ors. Page 24 of 24