Delhi District Court
Kusum And Ors vs Sanjay And Ors on 21 November, 2023
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. GAGANDEEP JINDAL,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-003049-2021 & DLNW01-005227- 2022 MACT CASE No. 191/ 2021 & 485/2022 FIR No. 282/ 19, PS Aman Vihar In the matter of :
Late Sh. Hari Ahirwar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal (deceased) Through his LRs:
1. Smt. Kusum (Wife of deceased)
2. Raj (Son of deceased)
3. Prem (Son of deceased) All R/o H. No. 54, Pocket-3, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi.
.....Petitioners Vs.
1. Sh. Sanjay Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o 134, Nagla Sakat, Nagla Gadariya, Sikandra Rao Hathras, UP.
....Driver/R1
2. Sh. Lokesh S/o Naresh R/o 40, Aurangabad, Jakhauli, Dist. Sonipat, Haryana.
....Owner/R2
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
7678, Singh Sabha Road, near Amba Cinema, New Delhi.
MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 22
....Insurer/R3
Date of institution of the DAR : 05.04.2021
Date of filing of petition : 30.05.2022
Date of final Arguments : 18.10.2023
Date of Decision : 21.11.2023
Appearance (s) : Sh. Devesh Kumar, Ld. Counsels for petitioner.
Sh. Ranjan Sharma, Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2. Sh. S. K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for R3 J U D G M E NT /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO HC Arvind in FIR No. 282/19, PS Aman Vihar, Delhi and as well as petition U/s 140/166 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short "MV Act") pertaining to the death of Late Sh. Hari Ahirwal (in short, the deceased) in road accident.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that on 26.06.2019, at about 9:30 PM, near Lakhi Ram Park Chowk, NDPL Office, Sector - 22, Rohini, the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-3SBL-6976 (in short "the motorcycle") a Truck bearing Registration no. HR-39C-2841 (in short the "offending vehicle") being driven by its driver in high speed, hit the said motorcycle due to which the motorcyclist/ deceased fell down on the road. The driver of the offending vehicle escaped from the spot of the accident. One passer-by namely MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 22 Mukesh made a PCR call at number 100 and shifted the motorcyclist to Agrasen Hospital, Sector-22, Rohini. Respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Respondent no. 2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Offending vehicle was insured with Respondent no. 3 at the time of accident.
3. An FIR No. 282/2019, PS Aman Vihar, Delhi was registered U/s 279/337 IPC.
4. Respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, in their written statement have submitted that the alleged accident was not cause by their vehicle. The claim of petitioner against them is based on false and fabricated story. They have filed the claim with malafide intention to extort the money. Respondent no. 2 have no knowledge about the alleged accident as respondent no. 1 had taken the offending vehicle of respondent no. 2 without his prior intimation and knowledge. Respondent no. 1 was having valid DL at the time of accident and offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident.
5. Respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company, in its written statement has submitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Accident occurred because of sole negligence of deceased. Deceased was admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital by unknown person. The police has not found any eye-witness for five months after lodging the present FIR. As per statement of Mukesh, recorded on 13.11.2019, he saw the accident on 26.09.2021 but he never approached the police to narrate the MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 22 happening of accident. Deceased was not having valid Driving License to drive the motorcycle on the date of accident. Offending vehicle was insured vide policy no. 271500/31/2019/6227 valid from 07.03.2019 to 06.03.2020. The liability of answering defendant is subject to terms and conditions of terms of policy.
ISSUES:
6. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by this Tribunal on 12.05.2022:
1. Whether deceased Hari Ahirwar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 26.06.2019 at about 9:30 p.m. at Lakhiram Park Chowk, Near Power House, Sec-22, Rohini, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-39C-2841 which was being driven by driver Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh. Ram Singh on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove their case, petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW-1, who has deposed in terms of her affidavit of evidence Ex. P1 and has relied on following documents:
i. Copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW-1/1.
ii. Copy of the Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 as Ex. PW-
1/2.
iii. Copy of the Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 as Ex. PW-
1/3.
iv. Copy of DAR as Ex. PW-1/4.
8. PW-2 HC Arvind is IO of the FIR NO. 282/19, PS Aman MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 22 Vihar. He deposed that during the treatment, injured died on 28.06.2019. He was identified as Hari Ahirwar S/o Sh. Ram Lal R/o B-86/87, Rama Vihar, Delhi. He issued notice U/s 133 MV Act to the registered owner of the offending vehicle who produced the offending vehicle and the driver. He seized the offending vehicle and arrested the driver. He also recorded the statement of eye- witness namely Mukesh. PW-2 also deposed that eye-witness Mukesh has left the given address. In his cross-examination, he deposed that in MLC of deceased, it is mentioned that there was smell of alcohol but, quantity has not been given. During investigation, PW-2 came to know that eye-witness had made a call at Number 100 who shifted the injured/ deceased to hospital in battery e-rickshaw. He came to know about the eye-witness Mukesh and his phone number through PCR record.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
9. No evidence has been lead by the respondent.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
10. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and have gone through the testimony o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Hari Ahirwar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 26.06.2019 at about 9:30 p.m. at Lakhiram Park Chowk, Near Power House, Sec-22, Rohini, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-39C-
MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 22 2841 which was being driven by driver Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh. Ram Singh on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
11. 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 by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 22 the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 22 adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:-
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304- A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 22 wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
15. In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only holds inquiries for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and it does not they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum that the driver of offending vehicle has been chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter is sufficient to infer that he was negligent and responsible for the accident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
16. Petitioners have examined only PW-2 to prove the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
17. PW-2 is the Investigating Officer of the FIR NO. 282/19, PS Aman Vihar pertaining to the accident involved in this case. PW-2 deposed that he recorded the statement of eye-witness namely Mukesh. During investigation, PW-2 came to know that eye-witness had made a call at Number 100 who shifted the injured/ deceased to hospital in battery e-rickshaw. He came to know about the eye- witness Mukesh and his phone number through PCR record. PW-2 MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 22 deposed that eye-witness Mukesh has left the given address. Therefore, he could not be examined as witness in this case.
18. PW-1 has proved the DAR as EX. PW 1/4 (colly) which contained site plan of place of accident, mechanical inspection report of the vehicles involved in the accident and final report filed U/s 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1. The factum that driver of the offending vehicle has been challaned U/s 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation, supports and affirm the case of petitioners that the accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, as a result of which, the deceased lost his life.
19. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 22 the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
21. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION:
22. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents.
23. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 22 deceased.
24. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
25. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no.1 is the wife, petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 are minor sons. PW-1 deposed that the Deceased was doing work as laborer and was earning more than Rs. 20,000/- per month. Deceased was spending all his earnings for welfare and benefit of petitioners. Petitioners were dependant on earnings of deceased as he was sole bread earner of the family.
26. No document with regard to occupation and income of deceased has been filed. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, has been treated as that of "unskilled person". Therefore, on the date of accident i.e 26.09.2019, the minimum wages of unskilled labour in Delhi is Rs. 14,468/- per month.
27. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 22 awarded to the petitioners as per law.
28. According to the Aadhar Card of deceased, year of birth of deceased is 1980. Even in the DAR, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years. Thus, the age of deceased is taken as 39 years and 6 months (approx.) as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "15" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
29. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 39 years and 6 months of age at the time of accident and was not having a permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
30. The deceased was married and there are three claimants/ dependants upon him. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one third (1/3)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S. Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
.
1 Monthly Income of deceased 14,468/-
(A)
2 Less: Personal expenses of 4889.33/- (A)/ 3= (B)
MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19)
Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 22
deceased @ one third (1/3)
(B)
3 Monthly loss of dependency 9,778.67/- [(A)-(B)]=(C) (C) 4 Annual Loss of dependency 1,17,344.04/ (C) x 12 = (D) (D) -
5 Multiplier @ 15 17,60,160.6 (D) x
(E) 15(multiplier)
0/-
= (E)
6 Add: Future Prospects @ 40% 7,04,064/- (E) X 40% (E) Total 24,64,224.6 0/-
Round off 24,64,500/- LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
31. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
32. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 22 titled as, "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors.", Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, I am of the considered opinion that the wife, and two children of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
34. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 24,64,500/-
2 Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 3) 1,20,000/-
3 Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 33,000/-
(@ 16,500/- each)
TOTAL 26,17,500/-
35. Hence, the petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs. 26,17,500/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Only).
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:
MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 22
36. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company argued that deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was not having driving license to drive the motorcycle. Therefore, the accident occurred due to sole negligence of deceased. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation.
37. In the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surender Singh & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 436, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India follows:
"if the person drives a vehicle without the license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligenly. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we failed to see as to how, only because he was not having a license he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."
38. In this case also, It has been held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. There is no evidence on record that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. No material is available on record to ascertain the content of alcohol in the blood stream of deceased at the time of accident. In the MLC of deceased, it has been mentioned that smell of alcohol was found. PW-2 in his cross-examination has deposed that no blood sample of MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 22 deceased was taken to ascertain the quantity of alcohol in his blood. The insurance company did not lead any evident to prove that the alcohol content was beyond the permissible limit in the blood of deceased.
39. Therefore, the deceased cannot held liable for contributory negligence mere because he was not having license to drive the motorcycle.
LIABILITY:
40. Respondent No. 1 Driver and Respondent no. 2 being the owner of the offending car are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending car was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident, therefore, respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R1 and R2 in respect of above liability. As such, Respondent no. 3/ Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
41. Ld. Counsel for insurance company submits that petitioners are not entitled for interest on the compensation amount with regard to future prospects. He relied upon the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Aisha Banu MAC Appeal no. 33/22 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on 14.07.2023 wherein it was held that there cannot be MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 22 any interest on future prospects as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Thus, in view of this observation, the petitioners are not entitled for any interest on the compensation amount of Rs. 7,04,064 /- pertaining to future prospects.
42. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 26,17,500/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the DAR, i.e. 05.04.2021 till the date of actual payment except interest on the amount of future prospects of Rs. 7,04,064/-.
RELEASE
43. The statement of the Petitioners in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 21.09.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the amount is disbursed as follows:
(a) Petitioner No.1/Smt. Kusum (Wife of deceased Sh. Hari Ahirwar) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,72,500/ (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
(b) Petitioner No. 2/Raj (Son of deceased Sh. Hari Ahirwar) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,72,500/ (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
(c) Petitioner No. 3/Prem (Son of deceased Sh. Hari Ahirwar) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,72,500/ (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
44. Out of the share amount of the petitioner No. 1/Smt. Kusum, MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 22 a sum of Rs. 1,72,500/- shall be immediately released to her in her MACT Savings Account No. 46240100014807, Bank of Baroda, Branch- Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0SECROH and the remaining amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
45. The entire compensation amount alongwith interest of petitioner no. 2 namely Raj S/o Late Sh. Hari Ahirwar be kept in FDR(s) for the period till he attain the age of majority and, thereafter, the matured amount be released to him in monthly instalments of Rs. 30,000/- each in his MACT Savings Account No. 46240100014837, Bank of Baroda, Branch- Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0SECROH.
46. The entire compensation amount alongwith interest of petitioner no. 3 namely Prem S/o Late Sh. Hari Ahirwar be kept in FDR(s) for the period till he attain the age of majority and, thereafter, thereafter, the matured amount be released to him in monthly instalments of Rs. 30,000/- each in his MACT Savings Account No. 46240100014836, Bank of Baroda, Branch- Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code BARB0SECROH.
47. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 22 Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
48. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners namely Smt. Shaney Vijayan and Ms. Vaishnavi Vijayan in their MACT MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 22 saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
49. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
50. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
51. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19) Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 22 view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
52. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
53. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
54. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
55. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 20.12.2023.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.
Digitally signed by GAGANDEEP GAGANDEEP JINDAL
JINDAL Date: 2023.11.21
15:22:20 +0530
(GAGANDEEP JINDAL)
ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 191/2022 (FIR no. 282/19)
Smt. Kusum & Ors. V. Sanjay & Ors.
Page no. 22 of 22