Delhi District Court
Munni Devi vs Rinku on 31 August, 2024
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01(SOUTH-EAST), SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
MACT No.:772/18
Munni Devi v. Rinku
CNR No. DLSE01-006410-2018
1. Smt. Munni Devi
W/o Late Vishram Singh
2. Sh. Ashwini Kumar
S/o Late Vishram Singh
3. Sh. Ashish Yadav
S/o Sh. Vishram Singh
All R/o :
Flat no. HS-1
3rd Floor, Plot No.91,
Sec.-5, Rajender Nagar
Distt-Ghaziabad, U.P.
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Rinku
S/o S.P. Singh
R/o H.No. 204,
Village Chandpura Khurd
Rampur-243701.
......Respondent no.1
2. Subhash Chaudhary
S/o Har Phool Singh
R/o H.No. 221,
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 1. Of 27 BK
:2:
Razapur Ghaziabad,
U.P.
.......Respondent no.2
3. New India Insurance Company Ltd.
3rd Floor Bhandari Nagar
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
......Respondent no.3
Date of accident : 10.07.2018
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of Petition : 04.08.2018
Date of Decision : 31.08.2024
AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of road accident in
which one Vishram Singh (aged 56 years) suffered fatal injury.
An application u/s 166&140 MV Act was accordingly filed by
the claimant/ applicant Smt. Munni Devi being dependent wife,
Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Ashish Yadav being dependent sons
of the deceased.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2018 at about 9.00
pm, Vishram Singh(victim) was travelling from Greater NOIDA
to his residence at Ghaziabad on his bike no. UP-76L-9183.
When he reached in front of Ajnara near Tilpatta Chowk, Greater
NOIDA, a trolla No. UP-81CT-1074(hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle), came from behind, driven in rash and
negligent manner and hit into the bike of Vishram Singh. Due to
the collision, victim sustained grievous injuries and was rushed
to Laxmi Hospital, Greater NOIDA, however, victim died on the
way. Driving licence and other papers which the victim was
carrying in his pocket were lost in the accident.
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 2. Of 27 BK
:3:
3. An FIR bearing no.0655/2018 dated 11.07.2018 u/s
279,304A IPC PS-Surajpur, Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. was
registered against Respondent no.1. After investigation,
chargesheet was filed in the court of concerned criminal court
and a claim petition was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver and Respondent no.2 is
owner of the offending vehicle while Respondent no.3 is the
insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. Despite opportunity, no written statement was filed by
Respondent no.1 and 2. In its reply, Respondent no.3 denied its
liability on the ground that there appears to be a collision
between the respondents and the petitioner and that the victim
was himself negligent in following traffic rules, which resulted in
the accident. The claim of the petitioner is denied being
exaggerated.
6. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were
framed on 22.07.2019.
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a
road traffic accident on 10.07.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-81CT-1074
being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with
R3? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove its case, petitioner No.1 examined herself
as PW-1 wherein she tendered her examination in chief by way
of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. She deposed that on 10.07.2018 at
about 9 Pm, deceased Vishram Singh was travelling from Greater
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 3. Of 27 BK
:4:
NOIDA to his residence Ghaziabad on his bike bearing no. UP-
76-L-9183. When deceased reached in front of Ajnara near
Tilpatta Chowk, Greater NOIDA, a Trola bearing no. UP-CT-
1074, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed from behind
into the bike of Vikram Singh. He sustained injuries and removed
to Laxmi hospital, Greater NOIDA but died on the way. She
deposed that IO recorded statement of witnesses and filed
chargesheet against trola driver. She further deposed that
deceased Vishram Singh was 56 years of age at the time of
accident and having good health. At that time, he was Flying
officer in Air Force and his promotion was due for the post of
Honrary Flight Lieutenant on 15.08.2018. Salary of the deceased
was Rs.1,62,000/- p.m. at the time of accident. Deceased was
survived by his wife and two sons. Petitioner no.2 Ashish Yadav
was pursuing LLB from Monard University and was financially
dependent upon deceased. She relied upon documents i.e.
certified copy of chargesheet, postmortem report, site plan, FIR,
technical inspection report as Ex.PW-1/1, Aadhar card & PAN
card of PW-1, petitioner no.2, petitioner no.3 as Ex.PW-1/2,
aadhar card of deceased as Ex.PW-1/3, salary slip for the month
of July, 2018 of deceased as Ex.PW-1/4, fee receipt of Ashish
Yadav as Ex.PW-1/5, ID card of deceased as Mark-A, copy of
President's Commission order as Ex.PW-1/7. She was duly cross-
examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Further, Sgt. Kulwinder Singh, Accounts/Assistant posed
at DAV Subroto Park, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi has been
examined as PW-2. He relied upon his authority letter as Ex.PW-
2/1. He has brought e-pay slip for the months of June and July,
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 4. Of 27 BK
:5:
2018 of deceased Vishram Singh and same were Ex.PW-2/2 and
Ex.PW-2/3. He was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for
insurance company.
Sh. Ashish Yadav (Eye witness) was examined as PW-3.
He tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW-3/A. He deposed
that on 10.07.2018 at 9 pm, he was travelling with his father
Vishram Singh (since deceased) from Greater NOIDA to
Ghaziabad on motorcycle bearing no. UP-76L-9183 and both of
them were wearing helmet. He was driving motorcycle and
deceased was sitting on pillion seat of said motorcycle. When
they reached at 130 feet road 2 km. from Tilpata Chowk,
opposite Ajnara Greater NOIDA PS Surajpur, truck bearing no.
UP-81CT-1074 came from behind driving rashly and negligently
and hit them. They sustained injuries and were removed to Laxmi
hospital & Trauma Center, NOIDA. Doctor declared Vishram
Singh as dead. He relied upon his Aadhar card as Ex.PW-3/1,
driving licence as Ex.PW-3/2 and father's driving licence as
Ex.PW-3/3. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
insurance company.
No further petitioner evidence was led.
Respondent no.3/insurance company examined Sub Insp.
Lokesh Kumar, Investigation Officer in FIR no. 0655/2018 as R-
3W-1. He deposed that he investigated the present matter. He
deposed that at the time of accident, deceased Vishram Singh was
driving the motorcycle. One witness namely Ajay Pal Singh had
taken the deceased to hospital. Deceased was driving his
motorcycle and was alone at the time of accident. Son of
deceased reached hospital after getting information from the
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 5. Of 27 BK
:6:
hospital. He was informed about two witnesses namely Dinesh
Kumar and Ajay Pal Singh to the accident. The said witnesses
had informed the police about the accident on 03.08.2018. Those
witnesses informed the son of the deceased about the accident,
who got lodged the FIR on next day. He was not cross-examined
by any of the party.
No further respondent evidence was led.
8. Final arguments in detail were addressed by learned
counsel for the claimants/petitioners and counsel for insurance
company.
9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the accident has
been duly proved to have taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.1. The deceased was 56 years of age
and working as Flying Officer at the time of accident. He was
earning Rs.1,62,862/-p.m.(Ex.PW-1/4). There is nothing on
record to controvert that the deceased was not working and
earning such amount. It has been prayed that an Award as per the
entitlement/claim of the claimants/petitioners be passed by the
Tribunal, considering that deceased is survived by 3 dependents.
10. The insurance company has argued and denied its liability
on the ground that the accident did not occur due to rash or
negligent driving. It is argued that the deceased was solely
responsible for the accident. It is argued that the deceased did
not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and
though he held a learner's licence, the evidence of independent
witnesses suggest that the deceased was driving the motorcycle
on his own without being accompanied by any person having a
valid driving licence. It is argued that the deceased was himself
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 6. Of 27 BK
:7:
in violation of traffic rules and therefore, necessary deductions
qua contributory negligence be made.
11. Now, on the basis of material on record, evidence adduced
and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a
road traffic accident on 10.07.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-81CT-1074
being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with
R3? OPP.
12. It is a law well settled in Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors. ((2009) 13 SC 530) in
Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance
Company Limited, (2001 ACJ 421 SC), in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as (2009 ACJ 287), that the
negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance
of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been
further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are
not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules
of evidence are not applicable. The burden of proof in a civil case
is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition
under the MV Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case.
13. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that since filing
of the petition till examining of PW-1/wife of the deceased, it has
been the case of the petitioners that the deceased Vshram Singh
was travelling by his motorcycle no. UP-76L-9183. It has
nowhere been cited that his son Ashish(later examined as PW-3)
was accompanying the deceased or was driving the bike or that
the deceased was merely a pillion rider on such bike. Further,
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 7. Of 27 BK
:8:
testimony of R-3W-1/investigating officer clarifies that even the
deceased was taken to the hospital by one Ajay Pal Singh S/o Sh.
Siyaram and that son of the deceased namely Ashish
Yadav(examined as PW-3) reached the hospital only upon getting
information from the hospital. It is,therefore that even as per the
chargesheet PW-3 Ashish Yadav has not been cited as an eye
witness. In fact, the written complaint dated 11.07.2018(annexed
with the chargesheet) made by Ashish Yadav specifically states
that the accident occurred when his father was coming from
Greater NOIDA to Ghaziabad and that he had been informed
about the death of his father by the hospital.
In such circumstances, it is observed that Sh. Ashish Yadav
was not an eye witness to the accident.
At the same time, assuming that there was no eye witness
to the accident, the occurrence of the accident or the negligence
of the driver of the offending vehicle cannot be overlooked
especially where such driver of the offending vehicle has been
chargesheeted for negligent driving and causing death due to rash
and negligent driving, after thoroughly investigating the case.
Even the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle
shows damage to the said vehicle from the frontal left side and
corroborates the occurrence of the accident from its front.
The fact that the police after investigation had filed charge-
sheet against Respondent no.1 under section 279,304A of IPC is
suggestive of negligence on the part of Respondent no.1.
Reliance is placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Vs.
Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 8. Of 27 BK
:9:
sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. It is pertinent to note that neither the owner nor the driver
of the offending vehicle have appeared or denied the claim of the
petitioner. Their mere non-appearance or non-presenting of
defence does not lead to a conclusion of collusion with the
petitioners, particularly when the details of the offending vehicle
were identified and informed to the police soon after the
accident. The fact that there is no delay in registration of the FIR,
diminishes the possibility of concoction or planting of the
offending vehicle. At the same time, failure by the driver and the
owner of the offending vehicle to lead any evidence or examine
themselves to disprove the case of the petitioners raises adverse
inference against them. Reliance is placed upon the decision in
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310, wherein it was held that if driver of offending
vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can
be drawn against him. In the present case also, neither the driver
nor the owner enter into the witness box to controvert the claim
of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
15. As regards the defence of contributory negligence,
petitioners have led evidence by way of Ex.PW-3/3 i.e. a learner's
licence issued in favour of deceased Vishram Singh by Regional
Transport Office, Ghaziabad. Even if it is assumed that the
petitioner was not accompanied by his son Ashish Yadav, the fact
that the deceased at least has a learner licence effective and valid
from 03.02.2018 to 02.08.2018, does not subject him to
contributory negligence on account of driving the vehicle all
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 9. Of 27 BK
: 10 :
alone. As such, the plea of contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased is declined. Reliance is also placed on decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v. National Insurance
company Ltd.(2018) 1 SCC 750 wherein it was observed the
mere absence of driving licence with the injured or deceased
would not constitute contributory negligence on his part.
16. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the claimants have been able to prove on the scales of
preponement of probabilities that the accident in question took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
bearing registration number UP-CT-1074 by its driver/respondent
no.1 on the date and time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner
and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
17. As regards liability, insurance company has not raised any
statutory defence or alleged breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. As such, Respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify
the respondents and compensate the petitioners.
18. The petitioners have claimed dependency on the deceased,
being his wife and major sons. It has been pleaded on behalf of
insurance company that since both petitioner no.2 and 3 were
major at the time of accident and death of the deceased, their
claim to compensation be rejected. On the other hand, it has been
pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that though petitioner no.2
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 10. Of 27 BK
: 11 :
was major(age 34 years) and married at the time of accident,
petitioner no.3 (26 years of age at that time) was pursuing LLB
and was thus dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
It has nowhere been pleaded or proved that petitioner no.2
was financially dependent on the deceased. As regards, petitioner
no.3, he was 26 years of age as on the date of death of his father.
Though claimed to be pursuing LLB at that time, the only proof
filed by the petitioners is Ex.PW-1/5 which is a fee receipt dated
05.09.2019 i.e. of one year after the accident. The fee receipt
shows petitioner no.3 to have been in Semester-I of LLB at that
time i.e. in 2019. Thus, petitioner no.3 was not pursuing LLB or
dependent on the deceased for his further studies at the time of
accident. Therefore, considering the age of petitioner no.2 and 3,
they cannot be assumed to be financially dependent on their
deceased father.
As such, only petitioner no.1 is considered to be dependent
on the victim/deceased Vishram Singh and hence entitled to
compensation.
19. Before proceeding further to decide remaining issue as to
quantum of compensation and its apportionment, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by the Apex court in
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.
(2003) 6 SCC 121. The relevant principles for ascertainment of
compensation are quoted here under:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
"9. 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. The issues to
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 11. Of 27 BK
: 12 :
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 deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To
have uniformity and consistency, 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 balance, 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
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 estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional amount in
the range of 5,000/- to 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 cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also
added."
ADDITIONS
"11. ...In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 12. Of 27 BK
: 13 :
are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read
as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased
is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependent family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 13. Of 27 BK
: 14 :
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
MULTIPLIER
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21
to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years,
that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35
years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by
two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
20. As regards, computation of the future prospects,
observations made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy :
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60
years and there should be no addition thereafter.
Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed
salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of
50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed
so that there can be consistency in the approach by the
tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench
as it was taking a different view than what has been
stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same
strength cannot take a contrary view than what has
been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 14. Of 27 BK
: 15 :
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point
of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.
(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.
(v)For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi)The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated
in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of
that judgment.
(vii)The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii)Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
21. In view of the above settled principles, this Tribunal needs
to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate
multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the
educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents,
whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased
was having permanent employment or private job etc. to workout
just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 15. Of 27 BK
: 16 :
non-pecuniary heads as envisaged and in terms of above
judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide
the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above prepositions.
Age and multiplier
22. The date of birth of the deceased as per his Aadhar card
Ex.PW-1/3 is shown as 10.12.1961. The accident occurred on
10.07.2018. As such, age of the deceased as on date of accident
was 56 years. Hence, he fell in the age bracket of 56 to 60 years
and multiplier applicable to this case would be 9.
Determination of monthly and annual income
23. At the time of accident, the deceased is stated to have been
serving as an Honorary Flying Officer with Air Force, Govt. of
India at a Salary of Rs.1,05,000/- P.M. To prove the employment
and salary of the deceased, petitioners examined Sgt. Kulwinder
Singh as PW-2. PW-2 produced his authority letter e-pay slip
issued by Wing Commander AV and relied upon e-pay slip for
the month of June and July, 2018 of deceased Vishram Singh as
Ex.PW-2/2 and Ex.PW-2/3. During his cross-examination, PW-2
stated that the salary of the deceased was Rs.1,17,454/- which
included basic, Ex-pay,DA, TA, HRA, Air stew, Air worthiness
allowance. The deceased was also covered under Group Personal
Accident for which Rs.2300/- was deducted from his monthly
salary. The pay slip or the employment of the deceased as an
Honorary Flying Officer has not been denied and stand proved
vide Ex.PW-1/4,Ex.PW-2/2 and Ex.PW-2/3. Petitioner no.1 has
further proved that the deceased was posthumously honoured
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 16. Of 27 BK
: 17 :
the rank of Flying Officer in the regular Indian Air Force by
Hon'ble President of India. The net pay received by the deceased
for the month of June, 2018 as per Ex.PW-2/2 is Rs.92,242/-. As
such, salary/income of deceased is ascertained to be Rs.92,242/-.
Accordingly, his annual income would have been
Rs.92,242X12= Rs.11,06,904/- P.A.
Determination of future prospects
24. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd.
Vs. Pooja & Ors. decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the
cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the
basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has
to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, as applicable to an addition of
15% in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years.
25. In the instant case, deceased is proved to be working at a
permanent employment, thus the addition of future prospects to
his income would be 15%, as he was between the age group of
56 to 60 years.
The enhanced income (after adding 15% of his annual
income, as future prospects) would be Rs.11,06,904/-+1,66,035.6
(15% of Rs.11,06,904/-)=Rs.12,72,939.6(12,72,940/-) P.A.
Deduction
26. As already discussed, only Petitioner no.1 is found to be
dependent on him. As per Sarla Verma judgment (supra),
deductions towards personal and living expenses of deceased on
himself would be taken as 1/2nd. Thus, the net deduction in the
present case is ascertained to be 1/2nd of the total calculated
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 17. Of 27 BK
: 18 :
income i.e. 1/2nd of Rs.12,72,940/- which is equal to
Rs.6,36,470/-. Hence, deceased would have been contributing
Rs.12,72,940-6,36,470=Rs.6,36,470/- per annum towards
petitioner no.1.
Determination of multiplicand
27. The multiplicand would thus be the annual contributed
income of deceased i.e. Rs.6,36,470/-.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
28. Since the age of the victim is 56 years, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment (supra), multiplier of 9 is applicable. The total loss of
dependency would come out to be Rs.6,36,470X9=
Rs.57,28,230/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss
of Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
29. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification
must have a reasonable foundation. There can be
no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in
bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb
rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be
extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 18. Of 27 BK
: 19 :
figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said
heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount
that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a
span of three years. We are disposed to hold so
because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...''
30. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
31. On the date of accident, deceased had left behind his wife, two sons. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 19. Of 27 BK : 20 : petitioner no.2/Ashwini Kumar is also entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate.
32. Share of petitioners (I) Petitioner no.1/wife is entitled to Rs.57,28,230/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.57,76,630/-. (II) Petitioner no.2/son Ashwini Kumar is entitled to Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. The total comes out to be Rs.84700/.
(III) Petitioner no.3/son Ashish Yadav is entitled to Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium.
Thus, the total amount payable by Respondent no.3/insurance company to claimants is Rs.59,09,730/-.
Liability:
33. As already discussed, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
34. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 20. Of 27 BK : 21 : ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 21. Of 27 BK : 22 : counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
35. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment
36. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/wife i.e. Rs.57,76,630/-, Rs.17,76,630/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence as per rule/ directions and remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.40,000/- p.m.
37. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Ashwini Kumar i.e. Rs.84,700/-, whole of the amount be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
38. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Ashish Yadav i.e. 48,400/-, whole of the amount MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 22. Of 27 BK : 23 : be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions.
39. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(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 (s) 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 or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) 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 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.
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 23. Of 27 BK : 24 :
(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.
FORM - IVA SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 10.07.2018
2. Name of deceased Vishram Singh
3. Age of the deceased 56years
4. Occupation of the deceased Flying Officer
5. Income of the deceased Rs.92,242/-per month Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Munni Devi 57 years Wife
(ii) Sh.Ashwini Kumar 34 years son
(iii) Sh. Ashish Yadav 26 years son
Computation of compensation:-
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.11,06,904/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 15% of A Rs.1,66,035/-
(per year)
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 24. Of 27 BK : 25 : 3 C. Total Rs.12,72,940/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.6,36,470/-
deceased 1/2nd of (C) 5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.6,36,470/-
6 F. Multiplier. 97 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs.57,28,230/- 8 H. Medical Expenses Nil 9 I. Deduction, if any Nil 10 J. Total loss of dependency after Rs.57,28,230/-
deduction, if any 11 K. Compensation for loss of consortium (Rs. 48400/-X3)Rs.
1,45,200/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 13 M.Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses 14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.59,09,730/-
total of J+K+L+M =N 15 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @7.5% per from date of filing of petition till actual annum realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.40 Lacs 17 Award amount released Rs.19,09,730/- 18 Mode of disbursement of the award (I)Share of amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) petitioner no.1/wife:
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/wife i.e. Rs.57,76,630/-, Rs.17,76,630/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence as per MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 25. Of 27 BK : 26 : rule/ directions and remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.40,000/- p.m. (II)Share of petitioner no.2/Son:
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/ Ashwini Kumar i.e. Rs.84700/-,whole of the amount be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/ directions .
(III)Share of
petitioner no.3/Son:
Out of the total
compensation
amount awarded to
petitioner no.3/
Ashish Yadav i.e.
Rs.48400, whole of
the amount be
released to him in
his bank account
near his place of
residence as per
rule/ directions.
All above amount
shall be along with
interest @7.5% p.a.
on total principal
award amount from
date of filing
petition till actual
MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 26. Of 27 BK : 27 : realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the award 01.10.2024 (Clause 31)
40. Put up on 01.10.2024 for compliance.
Digitally signed by CHARUAnnounced in the open court CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
on 31st August, 2024 2024.08.31 16:31:12 +0530 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01 (South East) Saket Courts/New Delhi MACT NO:772/18 Munni Devi v. Rinku P.No 27. Of 27 BK