Delhi District Court
Reshma Lrs Of Mohd. Salim (Petition Out ... vs Nasir Ali (Go Digit ) on 17 March, 2025
DLCT010062452022
Presented on : 11-04-2022
Registered on : 12-04-2022
Decided on : 17-03-2025
Duration : 02 Years 11 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI, PRESIDED OVER
BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 353/22
1. RESHMA
W/o Mohd.Salim
2. MOHD. SULTAN
S/o Mohd.Salim
3. KULSHUM
D/o Mohd.Salim
4. TARANNUM
D/o Mohd.Salim
All R/o H.No. 417, Raisathi Kheda,
Distt. Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-244302. ......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. NASIR ALI
S/o Sh. Riyaz Ali
R/o H.No. K-445, Kot Garvi,
P.S.Kotwali, Distt. Sambhal,
U.P.-244302.(DRIVER).
2. KESHAR JAHAN
W/o Sh. Bajruddin
R/o H.No. C-756, Gali No. 13,
Shri Ram Colony,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. (OWNER).
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 1/25
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17
14:50:44 +0530
3. GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Tower, 5th Floor, IFCI, 61,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
Through its Legal Manager(Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sujit Jaiswal) ....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 10/07/21
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident N.A. Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 17/03/25
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 2/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:50:49 +0530 open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 18/01/24 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the NA passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. 417, Claimant(s). Raisathi Kheda, Distt.
Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-
244302
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 12/04/2022 seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Mohd. Salim S/o Sh. Mola Buksh (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to a motor vehicular accident dated 01.11.2016. As per PW-2-Bilal (eye witness), he was the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-4655 and the deceased Mohd. Saleem was the helper on 10/07/2021. He MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 3/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:50:52 +0530 further deposed that when he was going Sambhal to Hasanpur on the said Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-04655 at about 10.00 A.M, when the said Truck reached near Chandawali Inter College then the tyre of the Truck burst. He further deposed that thereafter he and and helper (deceased) was changing the Tyre of the Truck all of a sudden a Car bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came in very fast speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind and him. He further deposed that both he and the deceased helper fell down on the road and deceased grievous injuries and there after both he and the deceased helper was taken to the hospital for treatment. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019. He further deposed that he was changing the burst tyre of the truck in a road side and the optical has been placed on the road which shows that the truck was standing due to some defect and some work had been doing by the staff of the truck but driver of the offending vehicle was in very fast speed and zig-zag manner due to which the said accident was occurred. An FIR no. 369/2021 PS Nakhasa U/s 279/304 IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
2. No written statement was filed by R-1.
3. A written statement was filed by R-2 in which they MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 4/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.03.17 14:50:56 +0530 declined the contents of the petition. However, she further averred that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company in favour of R-2 and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
4. R-3/ Insurance Company filed a Written Statement wherein it denied the contents of petition. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 18/01/2024, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Mohd. Salim suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 10.07.2021 at about 10.07.2021 am involving vehcile bearing registration No. DL-7CF-5019 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
6. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Reshma wife of the deceased, as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 5/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:00 +0530 deceased lost his life on 10.07.2021 due to an accident involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was 47 years old, was doing the work of helper and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month from his job. She further deposed that the petitioners, being the widow and children were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She relied upon following documents :-
"Ex. PW1/1 is copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased; Ex PW1/2 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.1;
Ex PW1/3 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 2;
Ex PW1/4 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 3;
Ex PW1/5 is the copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 4 (OSR);
Ex PW1/6 (OSR) is original copy of complainant dated 10.07.2021 given by Mr. Farhan; Ex.PW1/7 is de-exhibited as Mark A which is confidential memo particulars of the case J N Medical College Hospital;
Ex.PW1/8 is de-exhibited as Mark B which is a copy of postmortem;'' 6.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company Only. In her cross-examination she deposed that she is not an eye witness of the accident in question. She further deposed that she is not aware who had informed the MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 6/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:04 +0530 police regarding the accident. She denied the suggestion that no accident took place involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL 7CF 5019. She further denied the suggestion that her husband was not earning Rs.20,000/- per month as stated by her.
6.2 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Bilal, eye witness, as PW-2. PW-2 deposed, vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He relied upon the copy of Aadhar Card vide Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) and the copy of his DL vide Ex. PW2/2 (OSR). He deposed that he was the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-4655 and the deceased Mohd. Saleem was the helper on 10/07/2021. He further deposed that when he was going Sambhal to Hasanpur on the said Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-04655 at about 10.00 A.M, when the said Truck reached near Chandawali Inter College then the tyre of the Truck burst. He further deposed that thereafter he and and helper (deceased) was changing the Tyre of the Truck all of a sudden a Car bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came in very fast speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind and him. He further deposed that both he and the deceased helper fell down on the road and deceased grievous injuries and there after both he and the deceased helper was taken to the hospital for treatment. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019. He further deposed that he was changing the burst tyre of the truck in a road side and the optical has been placed on the road which shows MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 7/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:07 +0530 that the truck was standing due to some defect and some work had been doing by the staff of the truck but driver of the offending vehicle was in very fast speed and zig-zag manner due to which the said accident was occurred. He was cross-examined by R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that his left leg was amputated as result of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. He further deposed that after the accident he was taken to Metro Hospital, Sambhal, UP and he cannot tell who took him to the hospital after the accident as he was unconscious. He denied the suggestion that he is unable to produce any medico legal document prepared in connection to him treatment as he did not meet with any accident as claimed by him. He further denied the suggestion that the copies of the medical documents brought by him are forged and fabricated documents. He further denied the suggestion that he is falsely stating that he had seen the offending vehicle and its number just to help the petitioners. He further denied the suggestion that a false case and charge-sheet have been filed by the police who are in collusion with the petitioners. He further denied the suggestion that no accident involving vehicle bearing registration no.DL 7CF 5019 took place on 10.07.2021 resulting into death of Salim.
6.3 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
7. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 8/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:10 +0530 FINDINGS
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties..
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
"Whether the deceased Mohd. Salim suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 10.07.2021 at about 10.00 am involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-7CF-5019 driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.3?OPP''.
10. 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 MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 9/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:13 +0530 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined PW-2 Sh. Bilal, as an eye witness of the accident in question and an injured himself. PW-2 deposed vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A, at the relevant time, he was the driver of the Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-4655 and the deceased Mohd. Saleem was the helper on 10/07/2021. He further deposed that when he was going Sambhal to Hasanpur on the said Truck bearing registration no. UP-38T-04655 at about 10.00 A.M, when the said Truck reached near Chandawali Inter College then the tyre of the Truck burst. He further deposed that thereafter he and and helper (deceased) was changing the Tyre of the Truck all of a sudden a Car bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") came in very fast speed, in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind and him. He further deposed that both he and the deceased helper fell down on the road and deceased grievous injuries and there after both he and the deceased helper was taken to the hospital for treatment. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-7CF-5019. He further deposed that he was changing the burst tyre of the truck in a road side and the optical has been placed on the road which shows that the truck was standing due to some defect and some work had been doing by the staff of the truck but driver of the offending vehicle was in very fast speed and zig-zag manner due to which MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 10/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:17 +0530 the said accident was occurred. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. However, nothing favourable to the respondents came in the cross examination of this witness. As such, the testimony of PW-2 is reliable and trustworthy.
12. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-2 and the case of petitioners on this issue.
The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, bail order, postmortem report of deceased, release order of offending vehicle and site plan also corroborate the testimony of PW-2.
13. 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 PW1 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.
14. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 11/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:21 +0530
15. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) was hit the deceased at the relevant time. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
16. In view of the contents of the FIR as well as the postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
17. On behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company it was contended that there is a delay in registration of FIR and the grounds of delay are fictitious , the said contention can be discounted on the premise that in many cases after the death of a near relative the family suffers trauma and they fail to start legal process immediately after the accident and only when they MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 12/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:24 +0530 recover from the said trauma they approach the concerned authority. The socio-economic status of the deceased's family was not so good and in these circumstances their response to the legal process appears to be reasonable.
17.1 So far as the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was known to deceased's wife the same cannot be a ground to dis-believe the authenticity of the evidence.
17.2 So far as the plea one another victim Bilal was not named as an eye witness in the charge-sheet the same is against the record as Bilal is witness number two in the charge-sheet. Further, the mere fact Bilal has not been able to produce his treatment record immediately after the accident is no ground to dis-believe the police investigation qua the petitioners. Also, the mere fact that Bilal has not filed any petition for compensation is also not a ground to assume that claim of the petitioners is false as every victim has its own right to approach the court for compensation.
17.3 So far as the plea that there is a collusion between the R-1 and R-2 and LRs of the deceased, the same appears to be far fetched as after due investigation police filed in the form of charge-sheet against the R-1. It is also noteworthy that R-3/ Insurance Company never made any representation to the police or to the concerned Magistrate regarding any manipulation by the parties. There has to be some substantiate in the form of credible evidence.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 13/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:28 +0530 of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
19. 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
20. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
21. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Smt. Reshma as PW-1. PW-1 has deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased who was her husband was 47 years old, was doing the work of helper and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his vocation. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 14/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:32 +0530 income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an Unskilled-Person in UP at the time of accident i.e. 10/07/2021 were Rs.9,078/- per month.
22. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of Adhar Card of deceased as Ex. PW1/1. As per said documents the date of birth of deceased was 01/01/1974. The date of accident is 10/07/2021 Apparently, the age of deceased was 47 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench 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 multiplier of '13' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
23. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his widow and three children. Accordingly, all the petitioners shall be treated as dependents of the deceased.
24. Irrespective of this, 1/4th of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 47 MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 15/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:36 +0530 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 25% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
25. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.13,27,658/- (rounded off) (Rs.9,078/- X 125/100 X 3/4 X 12 X 13). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
26. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 48,000/- Parental Consortium : Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 3)
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 16/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:40 +0530
27. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,32,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs.1,92,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
28. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.15,59,658/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) (Rs.13,27,658/- + Rs.2,32,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12/04/2022. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
29. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
29.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 60 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 60 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 17/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:43 +0530 released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.1,78,347/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Seven Only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
29.2 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,907/- each ( Rupees One Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven Only). The entire awarded amount be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when they furnish the details of his bank account which is near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioners No. 2 to 4 respectively.
30. 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 Tis Hazari 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 MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 18/25 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 14:51:46 +0530 Date: 2025.03.17 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.
LIABILITY
31. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 19/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.03.17 14:51:50 +0530
32. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the 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 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).
33. Ahlmad is 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, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
33. 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.
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 20/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:53 +0530 File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report Digitally signed and put up the same on 17.04.2025. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:51:58 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA On this 17.03.2025 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/17/03/2025 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 10/07/2021
2. Name of the deceased : Mohd. Salim
3. Age of the deceased : 47 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Helper
5. Income of the deceased : Rs. 9,078/- as per minimum wages of an Unskilled-Person prevailing in UP at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Smt. Reshma 53 Years Wife of the
deceased
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 21/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:52:08 +0530 (2) Mohd. Sultan 38 Years Son of the deceased (3) Kulshum 28 Years Daughter of the deceased (3) Tarannum 24 Years Daughter of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs. 9,078/- per month deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 25% (B)
9. Less-Personal 1/4th deduction has been done expenses of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.8,510.625/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D] MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 22/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:52:12 +0530
11. Annual loss of Rs.1,02,127.5/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '13'
13. Total loss of Rs.13,27,658/- (rounded off) dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss Rs. 1,92,000/-
of consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss NIL of love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss Rs. 20,000/-
of estate(J)
18. Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.15,59,658/-
COMPENSATION
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 23/25 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:52:17 +0530 (F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to Rs.4,09,410/- (rounded off) the date of award(M)
22.
Total amount Rs.19,69,068/-
including interest(L +
M)
23. P-1 : Rs. 1,78,347/-
Award amount P-2 : Rs.1,96,907/-
released P-3 : Rs.1,96,907/-
P-4 : Rs.1,96,907/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award of the award amount to the petitioner (s) MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 24/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.03.17 14:52:21 +0530
26.
Next date for 17/04/2025
compliance of the
award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 17.03.2025.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir wit h directions to put up the same on 17.04.2025.
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17
14:52:25 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/17.03.2025
MACT No. 353/22 Reshma & Anrs. Vs. Nasir Ali & Ors. Pages No. 25/25 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.17 14:52:31 +0530