Delhi District Court
Munna Devi & Ors. vs . Kamruzaman & Ors. on 28 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUNNA DEVI & ORS. Vs. KAMRUZAMAN & ORS.
MACP NO. 295/2017
1. Smt. Munna Devi (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Mahabir Prasad
2. Sh. Sudhir Prasad (Unmarried Son)
S/o Late Sh. Mahabir Prasad
3. Ms. Pramila Kumari (Unmarried Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Mahabir Prasad
4. Ms. Asha Kumari (Unmarried Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Mahabir Prasad
5. Ms. Laxmi Kumari (Married Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Mahabir Prasad
All R/o 198, Pocket A-1, Sector-4, Rohini,
Raja Pur Kalan, Rohini, Sector-7, Delhi-110085.
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Md. Kamruzzaman (Driver)
R/o C/o Bangladesh High Commission
E.P. 39, Dr. S. Radhakrishan Marg,
Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 1 of 25
2. High Commission for the People Republic of Bangladesh
(Owner)
E.P. 39, Dr. S. Radhakrishan Marg,
Chankyapuri, New Delhi.
3. M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through its Manager
North Lotus Tower, 1st Floor, Community Centre,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 11.12.2017 Date of filing of DAR : 29.01.2018 Date of framing of issues : 23.05.2018 Date of concluding arguments : 08.02.2023 Date of decision : 28.02.2023 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in this claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the deceased Mahabir Prasad, aged about 57 Years, in a road accident thatt took place on 22.09.2016, at about 08.10 pm in front of DPS School Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR bearing No.920/16, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at PS Vasant Vihar. The vehicle involved in this case is a car bearing registration No. 7 CD 15 which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent No.1 (R-1), owned by respondent no. 2 (R-2) and insured with respondent no. 3 (R-3).
2. The facts of case briefly stated, are that on the above said date and time, the petitioner No. 1 along with her husband (since MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 2 of 25 deceased) were crossing the road from designated spot/Zebra Crossing in front of Gate No. 1, DPS School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, after seeing left and right and giving hand signal, suddenly a car in a high speed bearing registration No. 7CD 15 (Make Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R) came from AB Block Road in a rash and negligent manner and hit them. The driver of the car took them to a hospital for treatment and later they were shifted to Safdarjung Hopsital, Delhi where husband of petitioner No. 1 died during his treatment.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (Driver of the offending car) stating that he was neither negligent nor violated any traffic rule at the time of alleged incident. It is further stated that a speeding car was coming from East to West, which frightened the pedestrian, who was crossing the road and despite his best efforts to avoid hitting the pedestrian, they were hit by the car. It is further stated that respondent no.1 was having a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 and respondent No. 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. The respondent no.2 has also filed his written statement/reply stating the same facts as alleged by respondent no. 1 in his written statement.
5. The respondent no. 3/Insurance Company has filed written reasoned legal offer of Rs.29,78,617.18 after deducting 30% contributory negligence, for settlement, however, the same was not accepted to the petitioners/LRs of deceased.
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 3 of 256. It is pertinent to mention that the claim petitions bearing MACP No. 295/17 qua the deceased Sh. Mahabir Prasad and MACP No. 296/17 qua the injured Smt. Munni Devi arose out of the same accident and hence, vide order dated 23.05.2018, they were consolidated for the purposes of trial and decision and MACP No. 295/17 was directed to be treated as the lead case in which the evidence will be recorded. On the same day, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court as:-
1. Whether the Sh. Mahabir Prasad (deceased in MACP No. 295/17) sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Munna Devi (injured in MACP No. 296/17) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.09.2016 at about 08.10 pm, on road in front of DPS School, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. 7CD-15 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 4 of 25
7. Heard arguments advanced by Sh. Jatinder Kamra, Advocate for the petitioners/LRs of deceased, Ms. Vandana Kahlon, Advocate for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company and carefully perused the entire record of the case along with written submissions and case laws. The finding on the aforesaid issues is stated hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the Sh. Mahabir Prasad (deceased in MACP No. 295/17) sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Munna Devi (injured in MACP No. 296/17) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.09.2016 at about 08.10 pm, on road in front of DPS School, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. 7CD-15 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP.
8. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. The first question that needs to be decided is as to whether the accident was caused by vehicle bearing registration No. 7CD-15. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Smt. Munna Devi, wife of deceased in the present petition as well as injured in MACP No. 296/17 as PW1. She deposed that on the date of accident, she MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 5 of 25 along with her husband Sh. Mahabir Prasad (since deceased) were crossing the road from Zebra Crossing in front of DPS School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, after watching the traffic and giving hand signal, suddenly a car bearing registration No. 7CD-15 (Make Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R) came in a rash & negligent manner and hit them. She further deposed that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who violated the traffic rules.
During cross examination, she deposed that driver of the car took her as well as her husband to Primus Hospital. She further deposed that there was traffic signal at the spot. She volunteered that she was crossing the road using zebra crossing when the signal was red for traffic. She further deposed that her husband was walking on the left most side and towards the side from where the car came and hit them. She further deposed that she was hit on the zebra crossing.
9. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that this is a case of contributory negligence and she has relied upon the site plan as well as cross examination of PW1. On this aspect, she has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case Ajay Kumar Vs. Deepak Kumar, MAC Appeal No. 23/2017, decided on 27.07.2017.
10. This Tribunal has great regard for the judgment of superior court. However, the facts in the present matter are different from the aforesaid judgment. It has been categorically deposed by PW1/injured that she along with her husband were crossing the road MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 6 of 25 from zebra crossing on the traffic signal. However, she has denied the suggestion regarding contributory negligence that they were crossing from the middle of the road where there were no zebra crossing and the site plan though does not mention zebra crossing, but reflects the point of accident on the crossing.
This being benevolent legislation, hypertechnical approach should never be taken as the object of the Act shall be frustrated, which has also been laid down time and again by superior courts. Accordingly, from the present facts and circumstances, it cannot said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
11. Moreover, it is an admitted case of respondent No. 1, who in his reply to the claim petition stated that his car hit the petitioner No. 1 & her husband. It may also be noted that the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
12. Pertinently, Respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to prove his innocence regarding driving of offending vehicle in a rash and negligence MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 7 of 25 manner, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no. 1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident Tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
14. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. 7CD-15 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 8 of 25 compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
15. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
16. The petitioner no. 1 being the wife of the deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A wherein she has claimed that his deceased husband was a permanent employee working as MGR- Commercial in Commercial Department of Air India and his annual gross income was Rs.10,05,967/- as per salary slip of August, 2016 and total taxable income was Rs.94,420/-. She has placed on record the salary slip of her husband for the months of August and September 2016 as Mark B (colly) as well as copy of ITRs of her deceased husband for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16 & 2016-17 as Mark C (colly).
In order to prove the monthly income of the deceased, the petitioners have examined Sh. Haseen Ahmed, Inspector, Income Tax Officer, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002, as PW-2 who deposed that the deceased was having PAN Card No. AECPP1641Q and proved the Income Tax Return for the MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 9 of 25 assessment year 2013-14 as Ex.PW2/2 as per which the annual income of deceased was Rs.7,90,912 and he paid Rs.70,227/- as income tax for the said assessment year. He has also proved the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2015-16 as Ex.PW2/3 as per which the annual income of deceased was Rs.9,11,674/- and he paid Rs.79,694/- as income tax for the said assessment year. He has also proved the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2016-17 as Ex.PW2/4 as per which the annual income of deceased was Rs.7,77,532 and he paid Rs.1,00,352/- as income tax for the said assessment year.
18. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that allowances are not part of salary and it should be deducted in computing income of the deceased and she has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs Indira Srivastava & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763. This Tribunal has perused the aforesaid judgment wherein it has held as under:-
"17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted."
Similarly, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Sushila Yadav & Ors. ; Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chetan Parkash Kaushik & Ors. ;
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 10 of 25Sushila Yadav & Ors., 2017 LawSuit (Del.) 3185, the allowances in the nature of transport allowance, washing allowance, metropolitan allowance, ration money and conveyance allowance are regular in nature and are for benefit of the family and hence, these would necessarily result in corresponding savings and thus, the denial of these allowances would be net loss for the family of deceased. Hence, these allowances are liable to be included for calculating the salary of deceased.
19. Perusal of income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 reveals that the gross annual total income of deceased is mentioned as Rs. 10,21,247/- and the total taxes paid is Rs. 1,00,352/-. In view of the settled law on subject, the tax liability of the deceased, if any, is to be reduced from his above annual earnings as his 'income' means the actual income less the tax paid, as was also approved in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra). Therefore, after deducting the tax amount, the annual income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 9,20,895/- (Rs. 10,21,247/- - Rs. 1,00,352/-) and the monthly income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 76,741/- (rounded off).
20. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that the petitioner no. 1 in her cross examination has admitted that her daughter Smt. Asha Kumari was given job in lieu of death of her husband on compassionate ground and the same should be deductible from the awarded amount. In this regard, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 11 of 25 Aggarwal & Ors., (2008) 11 SCC 366, decided on 07.07.2008.
However, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court In the judgment of Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., 2018 LawSuit (SC) 1039 wherein it has been observed as under :-
"9. Thereafter, similar matter came upfor consideration in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan6. This Court, following Helen C. Rebello case(supra) held that the amounts received by the heirs by way of provident fund, pension and insurance cannot be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. This Court also held that the salary received on compassionate appointment cannot be deducted."
21. The petitioner No. 1 has tendered on record copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/7, wherein year of birth of the deceased is found recorded as 1959. Accordingly, the age of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. 22.09.2016 was about 57 years. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved in the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the nearest multiplier of '9' is applicable in the present case.
22. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by wife, unmarried sons and daughters of the deceased. Hence, all the petitioners are considered as MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 12 of 25 dependents upon the deceased. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 15% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the deceased was having permanent job and falling in the age group of 50 to 60 years. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs.71,48,424/- (rounded off) (Rs. 76,741/- X 12 X 3/4 X 9 X 115/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
23. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 13 of 2524. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 3 years have already elapsed since the deceased had expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium'. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,53,000/- [(Rs.30,000 + 10% of 30,000= 33,000) + (40,000 X 5 + 10% of 2,00,000 = 2,20,000/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
25. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 74,01,424/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Four Only) (Rs. 71,48,424/- + 2,53,000/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
26. As already discussed, all the petitioners are considered as dependents upon the deceased. Hence, out of the awarded amount along with proportionate interest, 60% share is being given to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 14 of 25 each is being given to petitioners no. 2 to 5, i.e. children of deceased.
RELEASE
27. Out of share of petitioner no. 1, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 150 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 150 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 27980110078075, having IFSC Code UCBA0002798 and PAN Card No. AKBPD3611P, being maintained with UCO Bank, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
Out of share of petitioner no. 2, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 15 of 25 Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 27980110078044, having IFSC Code UCBA0002798 and PAN Card No. CIBPP8761Q, being maintained with UCO Bank, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
Out of share of petitioner no. 3, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 27980110078068, having IFSC Code UCBA0002798 and PAN Card No. ASGPK5380F, being maintained with UCO Bank, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
Out of share of petitioner no. 4, 75% amount is directed to be MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 16 of 25 kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 27980110078051, having IFSC Code UCBA0002798 and PAN Card No. BCWPK3306A, being maintained with UCO Bank, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
Out of share of petitioner no. 5, 75% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing No. 20070110053157, having IFSC Code MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 17 of 25 UCBA0002007 and PAN Card No. BJHPK3190E, being maintained with UCO Bank, Ayodhya Chowk, Rohini and the remaining 25% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
28. The disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
29. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the saving bank account or MACAD scheme account of petitioner i.e. the bank account of petitioner shall be individual account and not a joint account.
30. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
31. 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.
32. The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 18 of 25 account of petitioner.
33. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
34. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank 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.
35. 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.
36. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
37. In view of foregoing discussions, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no. 3. being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 19 of 25 interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
38. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
39. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
40. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
41. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 20 of 251. Date of the accident 22.09.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the NA owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 29.01.2018 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance 17.02.2018 Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his No report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer filed, MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 21 of 25 of the offer of the Insurance but not acceptable Company. to the petitioners.
14. Date of the award 28.02.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 19.02.2018 Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place 14.12.2022 of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned Claimant(s) above
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of No the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 22 of 25
42. File be consigned to Record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 31.03.2023.
Announced in the open court. (Shefali Barnala Tandon) on 28.02.2023 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 23 of 25 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident : 22.09.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Mahabir Prasad
3. Age of the deceased : Around 57 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Govt. Services
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 76,741/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
Srl. No. Name Age Relation
(i) Munna Devi 53 years Widow
(ii) Sudhir Prasad 22 years Son
(iii) Pramila Kumari 32 years Daughter
(iv) Asha Kumari 31 years Daughter
(v) Laxmi Kumari 35 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Amount Awarded
No.
7 Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 76,741/-
8 Add-Future Prospects (B) Rs. 11,511.15/-
9 Less-Personal expenses of Rs.22,063.03/-
the deceased (C)
10 Monthly loss of Rs. 66,189.12/-
dependency
[(A+B) - C = D]
11 Annual loss of Rs.7,94,269.44/-
dependency (D x 12)
12 Multiplier (E) 9
13 Total loss of dependency Rs.71,48,424/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15 Compensation for loss of Nil
love and affection (H)
16 Compensation for loss of Rs.2,20,000/-
consortium (I)
17 Compensation for loss of Rs.16,500/-
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 24 of 25
estate (J)
18 Compensation towards Rs.16,500/-
funeral expenses (K)
19 TOTAL Rs.73,51,424/- (after
COMPENSATION deducting the amount of
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L) interim award)
20 RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of filing of
AWARDED claim petition till the date of
award to be deposited within
30 days and 9% thereafter.
21 Interest amount up to the date Rs.28,77,629.33
of award (M)
22 Total amount including Rs. 1,02,29,053.33 (rounded
interest (L+M) off to Rs. 1,02,29,100/-)
23 Award amount released P-1 = 25% share
P-2= 25% share
P-3 = 25% share
P-4 = 25% share
P-5 = 25% share
24 Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1 = 75% share
MACAD P-2= 75% share
P-3 = 75% share
P-4 = 75% share
P-5 = 75% share
25 Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to claimant(s)
26 Next date for compliance of 31.03.2023
the award
(Shefali Barnala Tandon)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
28.02.20223
MACP No. 295/2017 Munna Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Kamruzzaman & Ors. Page 25 of 25