Delhi District Court
Navneet Kumar And Ors vs Pritam And Ors on 28 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.173/2021
CNR - DLSH01-003520-2021
(1)Meena Chhabra (wife)
w/o late Sh.Suresh Kumar Chhabra
(2)Varsha Chhabra (daughter)
d/o late Sh.Suresh Kumar Chhabra
(3)Dhruv Chhabra (son)
s/o late Sh.Suresh Kumar Chhabra
all r/o H.No.464, Sector-19,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Pritam
s/o Sh.Hari Ram
r/o Subhash Nagar, Rewari Road,
Narnaul District, Mahendragarh,
Haryana.
(2)Inderjeet
s/o Sh.Jai Narain
r/o Village Garha, PO Sirhour,
Distt. Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123027.
(3)United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road,
Near Raj Block, Near Gianand Cinema,
Navin Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.04.2021
Date of Arguments : 28.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2024
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK Page 1
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:04:04 +0530
AND
MACT No.174/2021
CNR - DLSH01-003533-2021
(1)Rajender Kumar (Husband)
s/o Sh.Ram Swaroop
(2)Pratibha (daughter)
d/o Sh.Rajender Kumar
(3)Sagar (son)
s/o Sh.Rajender Kumar
all r/o G-114, DLF Sector-10,
Faridabad, Haryana-121006. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Pritam
s/o Sh.Hari Ram
r/o Subhash Nagar, Rewari Road,
Narnaul District, Mahendragarh,
Haryana.
(2)Inderjeet
s/o Sh.Jai Narain
r/o Village Garha, PO Sirhour,
Distt. Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123027.
(3)United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road,
Near Raj Block, Near Gianand Cinema,
Navin Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.04.2021
Date of Arguments : 28.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2024
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Digitally signed by Page 2
SHELENDER SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:04:12 +0530
AND
MACT No.175/2021
CNR - DLSH01-003534-2021
(1)Navneet Kumar (brother)
s/o late Sh.Loku Ram
r/o H.No.464, Sector-19,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
(2)Sudesh Bandhu (brother)
s/o late Sh.Loku Ram
r/o H.No.572, Sector-19,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
(3)Kanta Arora (sister)
d/o late Sh.Loku Ram
r/o 409/12, Jacompura,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Pritam
s/o Sh.Hari Ram
r/o Subhash Nagar, Rewari Road,
Narnaul District, Mahendragarh,
Haryana.
(2)Inderjeet
s/o Sh.Jai Narain
r/o Village Garha, PO Sirhour,
Distt. Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123027.
(3)United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road,
Near Raj Block, Near Gianand Cinema,
Navin Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondents
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
Page 3
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:04:19 +0530
Date of Institution : 17.04.2021
Date of Arguments : 28.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2024
AND
MACT No.176/2021
CNR - DLSH01-003535-2021
(1)Sunita Chhabra (wife)
w/o late Sh.Yogesh Chhabra
(2)Rajiv Chhabra (son)
s/o late Sh.Yogesh Chhabra
(3)Vaibhav Chhabra (son)
s/o late Sh.Yogesh Chhabra
all r/o RB-139, RBI Staff Colony,
Sector-6, Near Mohan Singh Market,
R.K. Puram, South West,
Delhi-110022. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Pritam
s/o Sh.Hari Ram
r/o Subhash Nagar, Rewari Road,
Narnaul District, Mahendragarh,
Haryana.
(2)Inderjeet
s/o Sh.Jai Narain
r/o Village Garha, PO Sirhour,
Distt. Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123027.
(3)United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road,
Near Raj Block, Near Gianand Cinema,
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 4
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:04:25 +0530
Navin Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.04.2021
Date of Arguments : 28.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2024
AWAR D
1. By this common Award I shall decide all the above mentioned
four claim petitions filed u/s 166 and 140 of M.V. Act bearing MACT
Nos.173/2021, 174/2021, 175/2021 and 176/2021 as all the claim petitions
are arising out of same accident in which four persons died and respondents
in all the petitions are similar.
Common facts
2. All the instant claim petitions have been filed in respect of
accident took place on 17.01.2021. It is stated that on 17.01.2021 at about
05.00 p.m. Yogesh Chhabra (since deceased) along with his brothers Suresh
Kumar Chhabra (since deceased), Jitender Kumar Chhabra (since
deceased) and his sister Smt.Santosh Chhabra (since deceased) were
returning to Faridabad from Mahendragarh, Haryana after seeing/meeting a
girl (bride) for marriage of his brother Jitender Kumar by a car no.HR-
51AY-5432 (Wagon R) which was being driven by Yogesh Chhabra. It is
stated that at about 05.30 p.m. when the car of the deceased persons
reached near Village Jhagdoli, Mahendragarh, Haryana, in the meanwhile a
bus bearing registration no.HR-66B-0859 being driven by its driver/
respondent no.1 came at very high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the car of deceased, resultantly all the occupants of the car
sustained fatal injuries. After the accident all the occupants of the car were
taken to Civil Hospital, Mahendragarh where they were declared as
'brought dead'.
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK
Page 5
MALIK Date:
2024.09.28
16:04:42 +0530
Facts in MACT No.173/2021
3. Present claim petition has been filed regarding death of deceased Suresh Kumar Chhabra. It is stated that at the time of accident deceased was 61 years of age and was a pensioner from ESI Corporation as he was getting pension of Rs.28,182/- per month.
Facts in MACT No.174/20214. Present claim petition has been filed regarding death of deceased Santosh Kumari. It is stated that at the time of accident deceased was 53 years of age and was working as a Teacher on the post of TGT (Natural Science) and was getting salary of Rs.1,15,873/- per month.
Facts in MACT No.175/20215. Present claim petition has been filed regarding death of deceased Jitender Kumar. It is stated that at the time of accident deceased was 44 years of age and was working as Assistant Grade-I with Food Corporation of India and was getting salary of Rs.69,337.5 per month.
Facts in MACT No.176/20216. Present claim petition has been filed regarding death of deceased Yogesh Chhabra. It is stated that at the time of accident deceased was 57 years of age and was working as Senior Manager with Bank of India and his annual income was Rs.1,47,848.88 per month. Common facts
7. Written statement has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 despite given sufficient opportunities, therefore opportunity to file WS on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 was closed vide order dated 27.01.2023.
8. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.3/ insurance company wherein an objection has been taken that accident Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 6 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:04:51 +0530 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR-51AY-5432 wherein deceased were traveling; owner, driver and insurer of the said vehicle were necessary parties which have not been impleaded in the present case. It is pleaded that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in case it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective DL or that the vehicle was having valid permit and fitness. Respondent no.3 has taken the plea/defence in terms of Section 158(6), 170, 56, 66, 134(c), 147, 149 of M.V. Act. Though it is admitted that the vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 was insured with respondent no.3 under policy no.2214853120P110349866 with validity from 11.12.2020 to 10.12.2021. Rest of the contents of the claim petitions have been denied.
9. On the basis of pleadings of parties following issues were framed 27.01.2023on 09.08.2018 :
MACT No.173/2021(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 on 17.01.2021 at about 05:30 pm near village Jhagdoli, PS Sadar Mahendergarh, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.Suresh Kumar Chhabra? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.174/2021
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 on 17.01.2021 at about 05:30 pm near village Jhagdoli, PS Sadar Mahendergarh, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Ms.Santosh Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page 7 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:05:01 +0530 Kumari? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.175/2021
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 on 17.01.2021 at about 05:30 pm near village Jhagdoli, PS Sadar Mahendergarh, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.Jitender Kumar? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.MACT No.176/2021
(1)Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 on 17.01.2021 at about 05:30 pm near village Jhagdoli, PS Sadar Mahendergarh, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.Yogesh Chhabra? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.
10. Vide order dated 27.01.2023 itself, ld. Predecessor consolidated all the petitions and ordered that MACT No.173/2021 shall be considered as main case and common evidence would be recorded in that case.
Evidence
11. In order to substantiate their case petitioners have examined ten witnesses. PW1 is Rajender Kumar, husband of deceased Santosh Kumari (in MACT No.174/2021); PW2 is Sunita Chhabra, wife of Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 8 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:05:21 +0530 deceased Yogesh Chhabra (in MACT No.176/2021); PW3 is Navneet Kumar, brother of deceased Jitender Kumar (in MACT No.175/2021); PW4 is Meena Chhabra, wife of deceased Suresh Kumar Chhabra (in MACT No.173/2021); PW5 is Vinay Kumar, Senior Manager from Bank of India who proved salary record of deceased Yogesh Chhabra; PW6 is Jitendra Kumar from Income Tax Department who proved ITRs of deceased Yogesh Chhabra; PW7 is again Jitender Kumar from IT Department who proved ITRs of deceased Jitender Kumar; PW8 is Suraj Raj from Food Corporation of India who proved service/salary record of deceased Jitender Kumar; PW9 is Chander Bhan who proved service/salary record of deceased Smt.Santosh Kumari; and PW10 is Mandeep from Employees State Insurance Corporation who proved pension record of deceased Suresh Kumar Chhabra.
12. No evidence has been led on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2. On behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company one witness R3W1 Shrawan Kumar from transport authority Narnaul has been examined regarding permit of offending vehicle.
Submissions
13. I have heard Sh.Upender Singh, ld. counsel for petitioners as well as Sh.Rajneesh Kumar, ld. counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company. I have gone through their submissions and entire material available on record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of petitioners and respondent no.3/insurance. Issue No.1
14. It is settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 9 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:05:28 +0530 strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others (MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012), Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. To prove the manner in which accident has taken place, PW1 Rajender Kumar deposed that on 17.01.2021 at about 05.00 p.m. he along with Vashudev Chhabra were returning to Faridabad from Mahendragarh by car no.HR-29W-7677 (Santro) which was being driven by PW1 and in the meantime his wife Smt.Santosh Kumari along with her brothers namely Suresh Kumar Chhabra, Yogesh Chhabra and Jitender Kumar were also returning to Faridabad from Mahendragarh after seeing/meeting a girl (bride) for marriage of Jitender Kumar by another car no.HR-51AY-5432 (Wagon R) which was going ahead of the car of PW1. Witness says that at about 05.30 p.m. when Wagon R car reached near village Jhagdoli, Mahendragarh, Haryana, in the meanwhile a bus bearing registration no.HR-66B-0859 being driven by its driver at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came after changing its driving lance and hit against Wagon R car no.HR-51AY-5432 with a great force, as a result all the occupants of said car sustained fatal injuries. They were immediately taken to Civil Hospital Mahendragarh where Smt.Santosh Kumari, Suresh Kumar Chhabra, Yogesh Chhabra and Jitender Kumar were declared Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 10 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:05:38 +0530 'brought dead'.
16. Though the witness PW1 was cross examined at length by ld. Counsel for insurance company, however no dent to his testimony has been done by the respondents. Witness remained cogent and consistent in his cross examination regarding the manner in which accident occurred. During cross examination PW1 stated that on the day of accident he was returning to Faridabad from Mahendragarh by car no.HR-29W-7677 and one of his friend was also with him namely Vasudev Chhabra. Witness says that Wagon R car no.HR-51AY-5432 was going ahead about 25 to 30 feet from his Santro car and it was a single lane road. Witness says that he was driving on the left side of road and bus bearing no.HR-66B-0859 came on left side of the road. PW1 says that speed of the bus was very fast and it was a head on collision between Wagon R and bus. Witness clarified that the driver of the Wagon R was driving on left side of the road and offending vehicle came from the opposite direction after changing his driving lane and hit the Wagon R car from the front side. Witness denied that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of Wagon R car. Even otherwise evidence of PW1 has been duly corroborated from documents of criminal case record Ex.PW1/10 (colly.) including post mortem report of all four deceased, site plan, seizure mem of offending bus from the place of accident, notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to owner who in his reply stated that on the day of accident driver/respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle, arrest memo of respondent no.1 in the criminal case, mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and the car of deceased, statement of eye witnesses etc. Report u/s 173 Cr.PC filed by the local police further shows that respondent no.1/driver has been prosecuted in the criminal case. Order dated 02.04.201 of ld. JMFC also shows that charges MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Digitally signed by Page 11 SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:05:44 +0530 have been framed against respondent no.1/driver herein for causing accident in question.
17. Thus keeping in view the testimony of eye witness PW1 coupled with criminal case record, this Tribunal is of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that all the four deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while driving offending vehicle no. HR-66B-0859. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
18. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
19. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Digitally signed by SHELENDER Page 12 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:05:55 +0530 relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. 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
(c) the number of dependents.
These 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 to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balanc expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 13 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:06:07 +0530 of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
20. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-
In MACT No.173/2021PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
21. Petitioner no.1 Meena Chhabra (PW4) in her evidence has deposed that her deceased husband Suresh Kumar Chhabra was 61 years of age at the time of accident. In support of age proof of the deceased, PW1 has relied upon PAN card of deceased Ex.PW4/2 and Aadhar card Ex.PW4/3. In the Aadhar card Ex.PW4/3 date of birth of deceased is Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 14 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:06:23 +0530 mentioned to be 26.01.1960. Similar date of birth of deceased is also mentioned in his PAN card Ex.PW4/2. As per these documents, age of deceased on the date of accident was 60 years 11 months. These documents in the opinion of this Tribunal are conclusive proof of age of deceased. Thus, age of deceased as on the date of accident (17.01.2021) was 60 years 11 months.
Assessment of Income of deceased
22. Petitioner Meena Chhabra (PW4) in her deposition stated that at the time of accident her husband was a pensioner from Employees State Insurance Corporation and was getting pension of Rs.28,182/- per month. PW4 also deposed that her husband was also working as tutor and running his typing centre under the name and style "Chhabra Typing Centre" and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from running said typing centre. During cross examination PW4 stated that she has not filed any document that her husband was getting pension or that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per from Chhabra Typing Centre.
23. To prove the pensionary benefits availed by the deceased, petitioners have also examined PW10 Mandeep from Employees State Insurance Corporation who stated that as per record Suresh Kumar Chhabra was working with ESI Corporation as Personal Secretary who retired on 31.01.2020 and he was getting pension of Rs.36,600/- plus DA as pension w.e.f. 01.02.2020. PW10 proved pension payment order of deceased as Ex.PW10/1, calculation of pension Ex.PW10/2 and commutation payment order Ex.PW10/3. Perusal of pension payment order of deceased Ex.PW10/1 shows that his pension was fixed at Rs.36,600/- per month after his retirement which was commenced from 01.02.2020. From calculation of pension Ex.PW10/2 it is apparent that out of pension of Rs.36,600/- per MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Digitally signed Page 15 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:06:29 +0530 month, deceased Suresh Kumar Chhabra commuted pension of Rs.14,640/- and net pension of the deceased was Rs.21,960/-. Commutation payment order dated 31.01.2020 of the deceased also proves that his reduced pension payable after commutation was Rs.21,960/- per month.
24. PW4 Meena Chhabra has further testified in her evidence that her husband was working as a tutor and running a typing centre by name 'Chhabra Typing Centre' at Faridabad, Haryana and was earning Rs.20,000/- from that centre. In cross examination PW4 however admitted that she has no documentary proof of her deceased husband earning Rs.20,000/- from Chhabra Typing Centre. However regarding the pension of deceased, evidence of PW10 has already been led.
25. In such facts and circumstances and evidence as discussed above, this Tribunal is of considered view that for evaluating the income for calculating the amount of compensation on account of death of deceased in accident, net pension which deceased was getting at the time of his accident can be considered to be his income. Although it came in the evidence that he was earning by other sources/typing centre etc., however no documentary evidence could be led to substantiate such additional income. As such the income of the deceased would be considered to be one which he was earning by way of pension i.e. Rs.28,182/-.
26. In this context it is argued by Sh.Rajneesh Kumar, ld. Counsel for insurance company that since the pension of the deceased continued even after his death to his LRs, therefore there was no financial loss. As such no compensation is to be awarded.
27. This Tribunal is of considered view that when MACT decides the question of compensation in case of death of anyone, the income of the deceased is assessed on the basis of evidence as come on record only for Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 16 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:06:36 +0530 the purpose of determining the just and fair compensation. The entire process of computing the compensation is on the premise that had the deceased been alive, how much amount he would have earned. Moreover beside income of the deceased, question of compensation is also to be decided on the basis of other heads like future prospects, loss of dependency and non pecuniary loss like loss of estate and loss of consortium etc. As such the income is to be taken as a notional figure as per the evidence available for computation of compensation. Financial gain even if continued to the LRs of the deceased after the death of the deceased would not make any difference for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation on account of death because the compensation is to be given for loss of life and the emphasis is on the monetary indemnifying the LRs for the loss of life. Compensation is not to be co- related with only loss of income of the man due to his death. Therefore even if pension amount continue to the LRs, still the income of the deceased would be considered to be amount of pension which deceased was earning at the time of his death which is Rs.28,182/-. Application of Multiplier
28. As held above, deceased was 60 years 11 months of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
to 25 years)
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 17
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:06:42 +0530
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
29. In view of the above, multiplier of 9 has to be applied against the age bracket of 56 to 60 years to determine the compensation. Future Prospects
30. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 18 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:06:53 +0530
31. Since deceased was aged above 60 years of age at the time of his death, therefore his income is not required to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
32. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)
33. Instant claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. widow and children of deceased. Since, the deceased was survived by three dependents, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Page 19 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:00 +0530 account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
35. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.28,182/-
2. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.9,394/-
expenses of the deceased (B)
3. Monthly loss of dependency (A-B)=C Rs.18,788/-
4. Annual loss of dependency (Cx12) Rs.2,25,456/-
5. Multiplier (D) 96. Total loss of dependency (Cx12xD=E) Rs.20,29,104/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3) (F)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (G) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (H) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (E + F + G + H) Rs.22,09,104/-
Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 20 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:06 +0530
36. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,09,104/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
37. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.174/2021PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
38. Petitioner Rajender Kumar (PW1) in his evidence has deposed that her deceased wife Smt.Santosh Kumari was 53 years of age at the time of accident. In support of age proof of the deceased, PW1 has relied upon educational documents of deceased as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned to be 13.04.1967. PAN card of deceased has also been proved as Ex.PW1/2 wherein also similar date of birth of deceased is mentioned. These documents in the opinion of this Tribunal are conclusive proof of age of deceased. Thus, age of deceased as on the date of accident (17.01.2021) was 53 years.
Assessment of Income of deceased
39. Petitioner Rajender Kumar (PW1) in his deposition stated that at the time of accident her deceased wife was working as a Teacher on the post of TGT (Natural Science) in Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and was getting salary of Rs.1,05,873/- per month and she was also earning Rs.10,000/- per from other sources. To prove the employment and salary of deceased, petitioners have also examined PW9 Chander Bhan, from Government School, Tughalakabad, Delhi who Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 21 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:07:11 +0530 brought the service record of Smt.Santosh Kumari who was working in the said school as TGT Natural Science vide employee ID 19920174. Witness proved service record of Smt.Santosh Kumari as Ex.PW9/1, appointment letter and other records Ex.PW9/2, promotion letters with joining report Ex.PW9/3, salary slips for the month of November 2020, December 2020, January 2021 Ex.PW9/2 (colly.) and attested copy of Form 16 for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 as Ex.PW9/5 (colly.).
40. Perusal of salary slip of deceased for the month of January 2021 i.e. the month when deceased died in road side accident shows that her gross salary was Rs.1,05,873/- and tax paid by her was Rs.15,000/-.
41. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the insurance company that transport allowance shown in the salary slip of deceased is neither basic nor DA, hence it should not be considered as part of salary while calculating compensation. Ld. Counsel also argued that there should also be deduction of income tax paid by the deceased. On the other hand ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that transport allowance is part and parcel of salary and it cannot be deducted while computing compensation.
42. Having gone through the submissions, this Tribunal is of the view that transport allowance given to an employee is part of the salary and it cannot be excluded from his monthly salary. There is no force in this contention of ld. Counsel for insurance. Therefore transport allowance given to deceased during her lifetime is to be included while calculating her income for compensation.
43. As come in evidence annual income of the deceased at the time of her death comes out to be Rs.12,70,476/- and after deducting tax amount on the same i.e. Rs.1,93,643/-, her annual income comes out to be Rs.10,76,833/-.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 22 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:25 +0530 Application of Multiplier
44. As held above, deceased was 53 years of age at the time of accident. In view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra), multiplier of 11 has to be applied against the age bracket of 51 to 55 years to determine the compensation.
Future Prospects
45. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), since deceased had a permanent job, therefore 15% of the income of deceased (aged between 50 to 60 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
46. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), since the instant claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. husband and two children, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards her personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
47. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 23 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:32 +0530 loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
48. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Annual income of deceased (A) Rs.10,76,833/- 2. Add future prospect @ 15% (B) Rs.1,61,525/-
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.4,12,786/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency (A+B-C)=D Rs.8,25,572/-
5. Multiplier (E) 116. Total loss of dependency (DxE=F) Rs.90,81,292/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3) (G)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (F + G + H + I) Rs.92,61,292/-
49. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.92,61,292/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
50. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 24 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:40 +0530 In MACT No.175/2021 PECUNIARY DAMAGES: Age of deceased
51. Petitioner Navneet Kumar (PW3) in his evidence has deposed that his deceased brother Jitender Kumar was 44 years of age at the time of accident. In support of age proof of the deceased, PW3 has relied upon educational documents of deceased as Ex.PW3/2 (colly.) which contains matriculation mark sheet of deceased wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned to be 09.08.1976. PAN card and Aadhar card of deceased have also been proved as Ex.PW3/3 and Ex.PW3/4 wherein also similar date of birth of deceased is mentioned. These documents in the opinion of this Tribunal are conclusive proof of age of deceased. Thus, age of deceased as on the date of accident (17.01.2021) was 44 years. Assessment of Income of deceased
52. Petitioner no.1 Navneet Kumar (PW3) in his deposition stated that at the time of accident his deceased brother Jitender Kumar was posted as Assistant Grade-I with Food Corporation of India and was getting salary of Rs.68,765/- per month from salary and Rs.572.5/- per month from other sources. To prove the employment and salary of deceased, petitioners have also examined PW8 Suraj Raj, Manager from Food Corporation of India who deposed that Jitender Kumar was working in their department as Assistant Grade-I (Hindi). Witness PW8 proved appointment letter of deceased as Ex.PW8/1, promotion letter as Ex.PW8/2, salary slips for the month of November 2020, December 2020, January 2021 as Ex.PW8/3 (colly.) and copy of Form 16 for assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 as Ex.PW8/4 (colly.).
Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 25 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:46 +0530
53. Perusal of salary slip of deceased for the month of December 2020 i.e. last month prior to death of deceased when he died in road side accident shows that his gross salary was Rs.64,806/- and tax paid by him was Rs.3,278/-. Petitioners have also examined PW7 Jitendra Kumar from IT Department who proved ITRs of deceased Jitender Kumar for assessment year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex.PW7/2 (colly.). Witness says that as per record gross income of deceased for assessment year 2020-21 was Rs.9,00,280/-, for assessment year 2019-20 his gross income was Rs.5,08,621/- and for assessment year 2018-19 his gross income was Rs.5,21,800/-.
54. As come in evidence annual income of the deceased at the time of his death comes out to be Rs.9,00,280/- and after deducting tax amount on the same i.e. Rs.53,610/-, his annual income comes out to be Rs.8,46,670/-.
Application of Multiplier
55. As held above, deceased was 44 years of age at the time of accident. In view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra), multiplier of 14 has to be applied against the age bracket of 41 to 45 years to determine the compensation.
Future Prospects
56. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), since deceased had a permanent job, therefore 30% of the income of deceased (aged between 40 to 50 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
57. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 26 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:07:53 +0530 towards his personal expenses. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), since the instant claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. brothers and sister of decesaed, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards her personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
58. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
59. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Annual income of deceased (A) Rs.8,46,670/-
2. Add future prospect @ 30% (B) Rs.2,54,001/-
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER Page 27
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:07:59 +0530
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.3,66,890/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency (A+B-C)=D Rs.7,33,781/-
5. Multiplier (E) 146. Total loss of dependency (DxE=F) Rs.1,02,72,934/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3) (G)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (F + G + H + I) Rs.1,04,52,934/-
60. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,04,52,934/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
61. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
In MACT No.176/2021PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased
62. Petitioner no.1 Sunita Chhabra (PW2) in her evidence has deposed that her deceased husband Yogesh Chhabra was 57 years of age at the time of accident. In support of age proof of the deceased, PW2 has relied upon educational documents of deceased as Ex.PW2/3 (colly.) which contains matriculation mark sheet of deceased wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned to be 04.03.1963. Driving licence of deceased has also been proved as Ex.PW2/4 wherein also similar date of birth of deceased is mentioned. These documents in the opinion of this Tribunal are conclusive proof of age of deceased. Thus, age of deceased as on the Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK Page 28 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:08:08 +0530 date of accident (17.01.2021) was 57 years.
Assessment of Income of deceased
63. Petitioner no.1 Sunita Chhabra (PW2) in her deposition stated that at the time of accident his deceased husband Yogesh Chhabra was working as Senior Manager with Bank of India, Khan Market, Delhi and he was getting salary of Rs.1,37,848.88 per month and he was also earning Rs.10,000/- per month from other sources. To prove the employment and salary of deceased, petitioners have also examined PW5 Vinay Kumar, Senior Manager of Bank of India who proved salary slips of deceased Yogesh Chhabra for the month of November 2020, December 2020, January 2021 as Ex.PW5/1 (colly.), Form 16 of deceased for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 as Ex.PW5/2 (colly.), service record and promotion record of deceased as Ex.PW5/3 (colly.).
64. One witness from Income Tax Department has also been examined by the petitioners who is PW6 Jitendra Kumar who proved ITR of deceased Yogesh Chhabra for the assessment year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 which are Ex.PW6/1 (colly.). Witness PW6 says that as per ITR of deceased for assessment year 2020-21, total income of deceased was Rs.13,00,020/- and net tax payable was Rs.2,10,887/-. PW7 Jitendra Kumar from IT Department has also produced ITR of deceased for assessment year 2021-22 as per which total income of deceased was Rs.16,15,100/- out of which he had paid tax of Rs.3,08,911/-.
65. Perusal of salary slip of deceased for the month of December 2020 i.e. last month prior to death of deceased when he died in road side accident shows that his gross salary was Rs.1,37,848.88 and tax paid by him was Rs.16,950/-.
66. As come in evidence annual income of the deceased at the Digitally signed by MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER SHELENDER Page 29 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:08:14 +0530 time of his death comes out to be Rs.16,54,187/-/- and after deducting tax amount on the same i.e. Rs.3,08,756/-, his annual income comes out to be Rs.13,45,431/-.
Application of Multiplier
67. As held above, deceased was 57 years of age at the time of accident. In view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (supra), multiplier of 9 has to be applied against the age bracket of 56 to 60 years to determine the compensation.
Future Prospects
68. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), since deceased had a permanent job, therefore 15% of the income of deceased (aged between 50 to 60 years) has to be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
69. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), since the instant claim petition has been filed by three petitioners i.e. wife and children of decesaed, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
70. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER by SHELENDER Page 30 MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:08:21 +0530 expenses is required to be granted and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by three legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
71. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Annual income of deceased (A) Rs.13,45,431/- 2. Add future prospect @ 15% (B) Rs.2,01,815/-
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and living Rs.5,15,749/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Annual loss of dependency (A+B-C)=D Rs.10,31,497/-
5. Multiplier (E) 96. Total loss of dependency (DxE=F) Rs.92,83,473/-
7. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3) (G)
8. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
9. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation (F + G + H + I) Rs.94,63,473/-
72. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.94,63,473/- only.
Digitally signed
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
Page 31
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:08:29 +0530
INTEREST ON AWARD
73. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. LIABILITY
74. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. In the initial stages i.e. at the time of filing reply to claim petitions, it is pleaded by the insurance company that the offending vehicle in question was not having valid permit to ply on the road. To prove its case R3/insurance company has examined one witness R3W1 Shrawan Kumar form RTA Narnaul, Mahendra Garh, Haryana who deposed that as per record vehicle no.HR-66B-0859 was having permit with validity from 11.03.2022 to 13.03.2027 vide receipt dated 11.03.2022 and earlier its permit was valid from 21.03.2017 to 16.03.2022 for route Mahender Garh to Riwari via Karina. Witness says that earlier registration number of the bus was HR-47B-1609 which was replaced by HR-66B- 0859 on 11.03.2020. R3W1 says that as per record permit of the said vehicle was valid on 17.01.2021 i.e. the date of accident. Witness proved record in support of his deposition as Ex.R3W1/A.
75. As per evidence of R3W1 offending bus no. HR-66B-0859 was having valid permit on the date of accident. Thus in view of such evidence as come on record, the amount of compensation is payable by respondent no.3/insurance company to the petitioners.
Relief in MACT No.173/2176. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.22,09,104/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation Digitally signed MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Page 32 SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:08:35 +0530 amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3/insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.173/21
77. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.2,20,104/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.14,89,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 60 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts), payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v.
Jaibir Singh & Others.
(ii) Out of the awarded amount, Manager UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 (children of deceased) for a period of 05 years.
78. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.174/2179. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.92,61,292/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 33 MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:08:42 +0530 during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3/insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.174/21
80. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.9,26,292/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.65,35,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 60 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts), payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v.
Jaibir Singh & Others.
(ii) Out of the awarded amount, Manager UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- each in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 (children of deceased) for a period of 05 years.
81. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.175/2182. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,04,52,934/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company Digitally signed by SHELENDER MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 34 MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:08:50 +0530 is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3/insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.175/21
83. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
(i) A sum of Rs.3,48,645/- each is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 to 3 and a sum of Rs.31,35,666.33 each along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in their names in the form of FDR for a period of five years.
84. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Relief in MACT No.176/2185. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.94,63,473/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent no.3/insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount in MACT No.176/21
86. The awarded amount is proportioned as under:
Digitally signed by SHELENDERMACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 35 MALIK Date:
2024.09.28 16:09:00 +0530
(i) A sum of Rs.9,46,473/- is directed to be released into the saving account of petitioner no.1 (widow of deceased) and amount of Rs.66,17,000/- along with interest on entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in her name with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 60 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts), payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v.
Jaibir Singh & Others.
(ii) Out of the awarded amount, Manager UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- each in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 (children of deceased) for a period of 05 years.
87. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Direction to the petitioners in all claim petitions
88. The petitioners in both claim petitions shall open a saving bank account near the place of their residence. Further, the bank of petitioners is directed to comply with 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 i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant 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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.Digitally signed by SHELENDER
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 SHELENDER MALIK Page 36 MALIK Date: 2024.09.28 16:09:10 +0530
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. 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 bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
89. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2024.09.28
16:09:17 +0530
Announced in the open Court ( Shailender Malik )
on 28.09.2024 PO MACT-02/SHD/KKD
MACT Nos.173/21, 174/21, 175/21, 176/21 Page 37