Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar And Ors (Lrs Of Ankur Khatri) vs Manbir Singh on 24 September, 2024
MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 472/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-007621-2019
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar,
S/o Sh. Umed Singh,
(Father of deceased)
2. Smt. Anita,
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar,
(Mother of deceased)
3. Ms. Preeti,
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar,
(Unmarried sister of deceased)
All R/o. U-48,
Jhanda Chowk,
Pana Udyan,
Narela, Delhi.
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Manbir,
S/o Sh. Latoori,
R/o H.No. 58,
Sunder Lal Pandit Wali Gali,
Village Singhola,
Delhi.
(Driver)
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 37
MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
2. Sh. Jaideep,
S/o Sh. Zile Singh,
R/o Village Kheri Manjat,
District Sonipat,
Haryana, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1st Floor, HDFC House,
165/166, Backbay Reclamation,
H.T. Parekh Marg,
Mumbai.
(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.08.2019
Date of Arguments : 05.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.09.2024
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. Mehtab Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. J.K. Gahlayan, Ld. Counsel for driver and owner.
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners U/s 166 & 140 M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the present claim petition till its realization being legal representatives of deceased Sh. Ankur Khatri Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 (unmarried, aged 21 years) on account of death of deceased who died in road traffic accident in question which occurred on 14.03.2019. The petitioners also prayed for compensation for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased.
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition as averred are that on 14.03.2019, deceased Ankur Khatri was riding on his motorcycle bearing registration no. HR10-AA-2271 which was being driven by him safely at that time. At about 8:00 AM, when he reached at Main Safiyabad Road, Near Star Automobile, Narela, Delhi, one Tractor with Trolley bearing registration no. HR10-AE-8938 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver (respondent no. 1 herein) in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle with a great force, as a result of which, deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 1189/19. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. A case U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Narela vide FIR No. 87/19 with regard to the accident in question. The petitioners have claimed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was allegedly being driven by respondent Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 no.1/driver. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and was duly insured with respondent no. 3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident in question.
3. In their joint written statements, the respondent no.1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have claimed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any to the petitioners in the present case. It has been further claimed that respondent no. 1 was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, they have denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
4. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company claimed that present insurance policy for offending vehicle in the name of respondent no. 2 was issued on the basis of previous policy no. 1104003117P114869665 issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd which was allegedly issued for a period w.e.f. 14.03.2018 to 13.03.2019, which upon verification was found to be forged and fabricated document. It has been further claimed that the present policy was obtained by misrepresentation of the material fact for the issuance of the policy and thus, the policy stands void-ab-initio on account of the provisions of Section 149(3)(b) of M.V. Act, 1988 and thus, the present case is liable to be dismissed. It has been further Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 claimed that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of deceased himself as he was driving his motorcycle at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.01.2020:-
1) Whether the deceased Sh. Ankur suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 14.03.2019 at about 8:00 AM at Main Safiabad Road, Near Star Automobile, Narela, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Narela, due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Sh. Manbir/R-1, who was driving the tractor bearing registration no. HR10-AE-8938, owned by Sh. Jaideep/R-2 and insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited/R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3) Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Vinod Kumar (father of deceased) as PW1 and PW2 Sh. Virender Singh (alleged eyewitness) and closed their evidence on 08.08.2022. On the other hand, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have examined themselves in their respective evidence as R1W1 and R2W1 respectively and their RE was closed vide order dated 14.10.2022. Insurance company has examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Raj Kumar Aaseri, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1 and Sh. Lelin Mohanty, Deputy Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 Manager (Legal), HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd as R3W2 and its RE was closed vide order dated 27.10.2023.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR, evidence led by petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the petitioners and insurance company considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioners. To prove the said issue, petitioners have examined one witness i.e. PW2 Sh. Virender Singh (eyewitness) as PW-1.
9. PW2 Sh. Virender Singh (eyewitness) in his testimony by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) deposed that on 14.03.2019 at about 8:00 AM, he was smoking outside his shop at Main Safiabad Road, Narela, Delhi and one tractor trolley no. HR10-AE-8938 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Narela side and hit the motorcycle from its side and caused the accident. He further deposed that the motorcyclist received injuries and he was picked up by the persons on the spot and later on PCR Van came and injured was taken to the hospital. He further deposed that driver of the tractor trolley ran away from the spot Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 leaving the tractor. He categorically deposed that the accident has been caused due to high speed, rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
10. The aforesaid witness (PW2) was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsels for respondents, where he deposed that he could not tell the name of IO who had recorded his statement. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO on 08.10.2019. He deposed that he had never lodged any complaint regarding the accident in question. He further deposed that he had gone/visited the PS on the call of IO about 8-10 days prior to 08.10.2019. He deposed that IO had not given him any notice in writing for coming to PS. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eyewitness of the accident in question. He deposed that the right side of the motorcycle was hit by the offending vehicle. He further deposed that he had not taken the injured to the hospital.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross- examination. Even otherwise, the testimony of aforesaid witness inspires confidence with regard to his presence at the spot at the time of accident as his name is also mentioned at S.No. 6 in the list of witnesses filed alongwith the chargesheet by the IO in the criminal case. Furthermore, it is an Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 undisputed fact that FIR No. 87/19 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Narela with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 14.03.2019 on the basis of GD No. 026A(which is also part of DAR) with regard to accident call received in PS. Narela on 14.03.2019(date of accident itself). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioners herein.
12. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has heavily relied upon the criminal case record (which is part of DAR) in order to bring home his point that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. He further argued that respondent no. 1 Sh. Manbir was also chargesheeted by police for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establishes that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
13. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that PW2 is not an eyewitnesses of the accident in question and no eye witness has been examined by petitioners during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, contended that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
14. Instead of referring to the series of decisions on the point in issue, it may be noted that it is well settled legal position as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various Hon'ble High Courts in a plethora of judgments delivered from time to time that in claim petitions preferred U/s 160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicles by its drivers. Same is the essence of legal position discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in celebrated case of Meena Variyal mentioned supra. At the same time, it is no more res-integra that claim petition filed under relevant provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of social welfare legislation and the proceedings are summary in nature and do not require strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It needs no emphasis that in case replies filed by respondents, are evasive then it is deemed that they have admitted the averments made by the claimants. The purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and the niceties, hyper technicalities, procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play and same should not be any ground to dismiss the claim petitions and to defeat the rights of the claimants. While saying so, I am fortified by the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as " N.KV. Bros (P) Ltd Vs. M. Karumai Ammal", 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); " Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy", 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and " Dulcina Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz", 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC). It is also relevant to mention here that while Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach.
15. The aforesaid issue again came up for discussion before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018, decided on 16.11.18. After referring to the previous judicial precedents on the point in issue and the fact that M.V. Act is a social welfare legislation, Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 29 of its judgment as under:-
"xxxxx
29. In our view, what more documents could be filed then the documents filed by the appellants to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein.
xxxxx"
16. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar and the claimants had not examined any eyewitness. Still, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view of filing of criminal case record including charge-sheet showing that driver of alleged offending vehicle had been charge-sheeted for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the driver himself did not enter into witness box, claimants were able to prove the issue of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by said driver on the basis of pre-ponderance of the probabilities.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
17. No doubt, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have examined themselves as R1W1 and R2W1 respectively during the course of inquiry. So far as, the testimony of R2W1 is concerned, same is of no relevance for the purpose of this issue as the said witness was undisputedly not present at the place of accident when the accident had taken place. Hence, his testimony is not being discussed.
18. As regards the testimony of R1W1 i.e. driver of offending vehicle, he deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R1W1/A) that alleged accident has not been caused with the alleged offending vehicle and the same has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of petitioners. He further deposed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he was driving tractor at normal speed. He further admitted that he had not hit the injured from behind. He deposed that he did not know as to who had hit the deceased on the date of accident.
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioners have failed to prove negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 in causing the accident. For this purpose, he has heavily relied upon the testimony of R1W1 as discussed above. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 petitioners argued that the testimony of R1W1 should not be believed as he is an interested witness. He further submitted that FIR was registered against respondent no. 1 and he is facing trial in the criminal case. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint before any authority regarding his false implication in the criminal case. The petitioners have examined PW1 & PW2 who have proved the documents like FIR and Chargesheet filed in the present case to the effect that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. There was no reason for them to depose falsely against the respondents in this case. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that R1W1 has taken the aforesaid plea in order to escape the penal consequences as criminal case is pending trial against respondent no. 1 for causing the accident.
20. Not only this, the respondent no. 1/R1W1 namely Sh. Manbir (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted (which is part of DAR) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
21. The site plan(which is part of DAR) annexed with the criminal case record has been prepared during the investigation. Perusal of the same Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 clearly reveals that offending vehicle came from behind. The spot of accident at point A, position of motorcycle of deceased at point B and position of offending vehicle at point T, as per site plan clearly shows, that offending vehicle was behind the motorcycle of deceased. It may be noted here that if the deceased was moving ahead of offending vehicle, how the trolly attached to the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor can hit the motorcycle first. It is quite obvious that tractor had initially hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle may be proved, either by direct evidence or by circumstances including principle by applying the res-ipsa loquitur. The offending vehicle is shown to have been seized from the place of accident on the date of accident itself. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of seizure memo dated 14.03.2019 (date of accident also being 14.03.2019) (which is part of DAR). No explanation has been put forward by respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2 as to how their vehicle has seized from the spot of accident, if the accident did not take place with the offending vehicle.
22. Moreover, copy of MLC (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) of deceased would show that he had been removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 14.03.2019 at about 8:52 PM. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased. Copy of PM Report (which is part of DAR) would show that cause of death of deceased was opined due to combined effect of cranio-cerebral damage and Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 hemorrhagic shock consequent to injury to the head and chest. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration prior to death and caused by blunt force/surface impact. The injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of external injuries of the said report, are also consistent with the injuries which are sustained in road traffic accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that deceased Ankur Khatri had sustained fatal injuries in the Motor Vehicular Accident which had occurred on 14.03.2019 at about 8:00 AM at Main Safiyabad Road, Near Star Automobile, Narela, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 224. The petitioners who are claimants are the parents and sister of deceased. It is evident that the petitioners have actually suffered monetary loss and mental agony due to death of deceased who was the only earning male member in their family. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
25. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
27. The claimants/petitioners are the parents and sister of deceased. PW1 Sh. Vinod (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was working with Maan Transport Company, Nai Anaj Mandi, Narela and was drawing Rs. 16,000/- per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that deceased was graduate and he had also done professional course for Computer Typing and Shorthand. He further deposed that deceased was a sincere and diligent student having energetic aspirations and enduring for various competitive examinations and had applied for various jobs. He has relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/1
2. DAR Ex. PW1/2(colly)
3. Death Certificate of deceased Ex. PW1/6
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 37
MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
4. Copy of Secondary School Ex. PW1/7
Examination of deceased
5. Copy of Senior Secondary Ex. PW1/8
Examination of deceased
6. Copy of BA Final Examination of Ex. PW1/9
deceased
7. Copy of certificate of professional Ex. PW1/10
course of deceased
8. Copies of forms applied for services Ex. PW1/11
in various department
9. Copy of salary certificate of Ex. PW1/12
deceased
28. During cross-examination of PW1 (father of deceased) on behalf of driver and owner, he deposed that he was a farmer and he was having 3 bighas land in his name. He further deposed that he was not an eyewitness to the accident. He denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of deceased as he was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was not aware about the name of the registered owner of motorcycle no. HR10-AA-2271 which was being driven by deceased at the time of accident. He admitted that deceased was not having driving licence at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that deceased did not know how to drive the motorcycle at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that deceased was not working and earning Rs. 16,000/- per month at the time of accident. He Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 further denied the suggestion that all the petitioners were not financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that deceased was financially dependent upon him at the time of accident.
29. Father of the deceased vide his testimony as PW1 has testified that deceased was working with Maan Transport Company, Nai Anaj Mandi, Narela, Delhi and getting monthly salary of Rs. 16,000/- at the time of accident. Although, the petitioners have filed educational qualification documents of deceased which shows that deceased was graduate at the time of accident but the same was objected by the counsel for insurance company as to the mode of proof. Since, the petitioners did not examine the authorities which had issued these documents, the aforesaid documents though can not be read in the evidence of PW1, however, they were filed by the IO alongwith DAR.
30. At this juncture, it may be noted here that the contents of DAR and the documents filed therewith, carry presumption of their correctness in terms of Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008. The said rule contains the expression 'shall', which shows that the presumption is mandatory in nature. It would also be relevant to refer to the provision contained in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant part of the said provision reads as under:-
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 "xxxx "Shall presume"- whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. xxxx"
31. In view of the aforesaid, as per the testimony of PW1 and documents relied upon by him, it stands proved that deceased was graduate at the time of accident as no contradictory evidence has been led by the respondents that the documents filed alognwith DAR were forged and fabricated. It is also relevant to note here that deceased was a young boy of aged about 21 years. There is nothing on record by way of affirmative evidence or cross-examination of the petitioner's witness which has been able to create any doubt in the veracity of the testimony of PW1 or challanged or rebutted petitioner's evidence. The relevant date for assessment of earning of the deceased is the date of his unfortunate demise i.e. date of accident 14.03.2019. It is duly established on record that the petitioners as well as their son deceased are/were residing in Delhi and the place of accident is also at Delhi. In these facts and circumstances, the relevant applicable schedule of minimum wages would be as notified by the State of Delhi, from time to time. It is already considered that educational qualification of the deceased has already been proved. It has been testified that deceased was earning about Rs. 16,000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages of a matriculate person in the State of Delhi was Rs. 16,962/- per month as on the date of accident and the same was revised to Rs. 17,508/- w.e.f. 01.04.2019 i.e. just after 17 days of the accident (date of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 accident being 14.03.2019). Since, the minimum wages were revised just after 17 days of the accident, I am of the considered view that revised minimum wages should be considered for computation of loss of dependency in the present matter. Thus, the monthly income of deceased, as on the date of accident i.e. 14.03.2019 is assessed as Rs. 17,508/-. Although, the petitioners have claimed less amount than the amount given in Minimum Wages Act but he could not have been employed by anyone at the rate lower than the minimum wages prevalent during the period. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the monthly income of deceased as per minimum wages of a matriculate person prevalent in Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of a matriculate person were Rs. 17,508/- per month in Delhi as on the date of accident i.e. 14.03.2019.
32. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Ankur Khatri was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have relied upon copy of 10th class marksheet (Ex. PW1/7) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 13.09.1997. The said document has not been disproved by the respondents. Thus, it stands proved that date of birth of deceased is 13.09.1997 and he was 22 years of age at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
33. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
34. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased. It is relevant to note here that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. Since, the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 26,47,209.60 paise (Rs. 17,508/- X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 26,47,000/- (rounded off)is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of compensation on account of "Loss of Love & Affection" the binding legal Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja's case (supra), has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi's case (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
36. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 14.03.2019] LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 14.03.2019]
38. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 23 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 26,47,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 27,80,100/-
Rounded off to Rs. 27,80,000/-
39. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for insurance company sought to avoid the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation amount on the ground that previous insurance policy on the basis of which insurance policy for the period in question in respect of offending vehicle, had been issued, was found to be fake. Therefore, the insurance policy for the current period is void-ab-initio in view of Section 149 (3) (b) of M.V Act. For this purpose, he heavily relied upon the testimonies of R3W1 Sh. Raj Kumar Aaseri, Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Hisar, Haryana and of R3W2 namely Sh. Lelin Mohanty, Deputy Manager(Legal), HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 24 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
40. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1 & 2 vehemently argued that insurer had issued valid insurance policy for the period in question in respect of offending vehicle, after satisfying itself with all the legal requirements including the validity of insurance policy of the previous year and thus, it cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation amount. He further argued that respondent no. 3/insurer has failed to establish that insurance policy for the previous year was fake one. For this purpose, he referred to relevant part of cross examination of R3W1 (official from the insurance company which had issued insurance policy for the previous year) during which he deposed that their company came to know the policy Ex. R2W1/R3X being a fake policy after receipt of notice from this Tribunal on 20.02.2023 and 10.05.2023 and thereafter, enquiry was made by their Company. He further deposed that their company did not inform the police against the owner of offending vehicle for having used a fake policy as genuine. He further deposed that their company did not approach the Court against the owner in this regard. He also deposed that their company did not issue any notice to the owner in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately termed policy Ex. R2W1/R3X to be a false policy. He further denied the suggestion that the premium payment receipt being part of aforesaid policy was issued by their company or that the same was genuine. He also admitted in his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for driver and owner that Ms. Neetu Mittal being shown as Agent in policy Ex R2W1/R3X was their authorized agent to issue insurance policy and her Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 25 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 code name AGD0108272 mentioned therein was also correct. He deposed that they did not initiate any action against their aforesaid agent after receipt of notice from this Tribunal on 10.02.2023 till date.
41. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the insured as well as the insurer, it would be appropriate to discuss the testimonies of the relevant witnesses examined on this issue. R3W2 deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex R3W2/A that policy bearing no. 2316202708665500000 was issued in the name of Jai Deep/Respondent no. 2 having validity from 14.03.2019 to 13.03.2020 tractor only. He further deposed that the said policy was found to be void-ab-initio on the ground that the same was obtained by the respondent no. 2 on the basis of fake policy or false representation. He further deposed that the trolley attached with the tractor was not insured with the insurance company/R3 and no extra premium was paid by the respondent no. 2/owner of the tractor to insure the trolley which was attached with the tractor at the time of accident. For this, he has relied upon copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. HR10-AE-8938 and exhibited the same as Ex. R3W2/1(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of driver and owner, he deposed that he could not tell the exact date on which he received the information regarding previous policy already Ex. R2W1/R3X of offending vehicle. He further deposed that he did not know whether any complaint/action in respect of aforesaid fake policy was made by his Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 26 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 company or not. He admitted that in case of issuance of any insurance policy by any authorized agent, his/her name would be mentioned in the policy. He admitted that the insurance policy of offending vehicle issued by their company has not been cancelled.
42. It is apparent on record that R3W2 expressed ignorance as to whether his company had taken any affidavit from registered owner/respondent no. 2 regarding consequence in case previous insurance policy was found to be fake or not. He could not tell the date when it came to the knowledge of insurance co that previous insurance policy was fake. He also expressed ignorance if any notice was served upon insured calling upon him to submit explanation that previous insurance policy furnished by him, was found to be fake.
43. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on behalf of insured and insurer and have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of claimants and insurer and the authorities cited at the Bar.
44. It is contended on behalf of insurance company that insurance co is not at all liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners as the insurance policy had become void in view of previous insurance policy being fake one submitted by the insured. Hence, insurance company is liable to be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation amount.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 27 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
45. Be that as it may, the aforesaid limb of argument raised on behalf of insurance company, needs to be decided on the touch stone of the statutory provisions contained in M.V Act and on the basis of law of the land as enunciated by Superior Courts. The conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 145 (b), Section 147 and Section 149 (1) of M.V Act in the backdrop of the object and the purpose behind the said enactment, would leave no scope of doubt that once Certificate of Insurance had been issued, then liability U/s 149 (1) M.V Act towards third parties on behalf of the insurance company exists, notwithstanding the fact that the insurance policy has been cancelled or is liable to be cancelled. Sub Section (5) of Section 147 of M.V Act starts with non-obstante clause, which gives primacy and over riding effect notwithstanding any other law including Insurance Act, to the contrary. Thus, an insurer having issued the policy of insurance, is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of the claims covered by the policy.
46. Turning to the facts of the present case. It is an undisputed fact that respondent no. 3 had issued insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle for the period in question. It may be noted here that R3W2 has admitted that the insurance policy of offending vehicle issued by their company had not been cancelled and they had accepted premium amount for the same from the insured. It may also be noted here that the insurance company did not verify the previous insurance policy admittedly till notice Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 28 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 was issued in this case. This shows that insurance company continued to accept premium without verification of previous policy. Rather, despite having the particulars of the agent who had committed the fraud at the time of issuance of previous policy on the basis of which current policy of offending vehicle was issued, the respondent no. 3 had failed to file any complaint against her with any Competent Authority in order to prove the fraud committed by her. That being the position emerging on record, I am of the considered opinion that the insurance co/R3 has statutory liability to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners being duty bound to indemnify third party risk insured by it by virtue of the insurance policy issued in respect of offending vehicle for the period in question.
47. Now, I shall deal with the second limb of argument raised on behalf of insurance company wherein it has disputed its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle is a tractor with trolly and the accident was caused by the trolly attached to it and the trolly was not insured with it, hence the insurance company is not liable.
48. Per contra, counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 vehemently argued that trolley is an essential part and parcel of tractor and one can not effectively use tractor without trolley being attached to it. Though, it has been claimed that accident was not caused by alleged offending vehicle but the tractor was duly insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 29 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 being contractually and statutorily bound to indemnify the insured. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as " Rajender Singh & Anr. Vs. Santosh Devi & Ors.", III(2014) ACC 775 (DEL.) and another decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as " United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Surender & Ors.", 2006 ACJ 1285.
49. The identical question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case titled as "Asari Pothalingam & Ors., Vs. Lambadi Mamji & Anr, 2012 ACJ 2117(A.P). In the said case also, only tractor was insured but the said tractor was attached with trolley at the time of accident which led to death of one labourer travelling therein. Similar contention was made on behalf of insurance company that since trolley was not insured, it is not liable to pay any compensation for damage caused to third party by trolley. While rejecting the said contention, it was held in para 17 of the judgment, after referring to previous decision delivered by Division Bench of A.P. High Court reported at 2009 ACJ 514(A.P), that no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailor and when the trailor is attached to the tractor, which is insured, it becomes a part of the tractor. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Surender mentioned supra as also by Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported at 2008 (2) Transport and Accidents Cases 582 (A.P).
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 30 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
50. It is not out of place to mention that neither any witness nor any material has suggested that the accident was not caused by the tractor but trolley. It is neither in the chargesheet nor in the written statement of insurance company stated that there was involvement of only trolly in causing the accident. Witnesses and material available on record have also proved that the accident has taken place with the tractor only.
51. The site plan(which is part of DAR) annexed with the criminal case record has been prepared during the investigation. Perusal of the same clearly reveals that offending vehicle came from behind. The spot of accident at point A, position of motorcycle of deceased at point B and position of offending vehicle at point T, as per site plan clearly shows, that offending vehicle was behind the motorcycle of deceased. It may be noted here that if the deceased was moving ahead of offending vehicle, how the trolly attached to the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor can hit the motorcycle first. It is quite obvious that tractor had initially hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. In view of the same, I am not in agreement with the submission made by Ld. Counsel for insurance company that accident was caused by the trolly not by the tractor.
52. In the present case, it is an admitted position on record that respondent no.3/insurance company had issued insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle for the period in question in favour of respondent no.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 31 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 2/insured. At no point of time, insurance company is shown to have acted diligently or promptly in cancelling the insurance policy. There is no dispute to the fact that the insurance policy in question remained in force till the period of its validity and was valid at the time of accident. This fact when considered in the light of the relevant part of cross examination of R3W2 (i.e. Officer of respondent no. 3), leads to the conclusion that the entire conduct on the part of insurance co had been negligent. Moreover, the said insurance policy remained in force throughout the period of its validity and was not cancelled at all. The insurance company duly accepted the insurance premium while issuing insurance policy of the vehicle for the period in question and used it for its benefit. As far as the second contention of insurance company was concerned that the trolly attached to the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent no.3 at the time of accident, as such it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners has already been discussed hereinabove and the said contention has already been rejected therein. Thus, I am of the view that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, insurance co /respondent no. 3 cannot be allowed to take the plea that insurance policy was void in view of Section 149 (2) (b) of M.V Act. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 32 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
53. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 27,80,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 08.08.2019 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
54. Statement of petitioners are recorded today itself i.e. 23.03.2023 in compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. In view of their statements and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount along with proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 1 namely Sh. Vinod Kumar (father of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anita (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 17,80,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Eighty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 33 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
55. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 601417010000004 with Bank of India, 2111, Kripa Niwas, Bawana, Road, Delhi, having IFSC Code BKID0006014 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest, for each of the petitioners.
56. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Eighty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her bank account no. 601417010000003 with Bank of India, 2111, Kripa Niwas, Bawana, Road, Delhi, having IFSC Code BKID0006014 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest, for each of the petitioners.
57. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(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).Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 34 of 37
MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
(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 to 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.
(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 alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 35 of 37MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
58. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their respective bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 36 of 37 MACP No. 472/19; FIR No. 87/19; PS. Narela DOD: 24.09.2024 and necessary compliance. Form XV & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2024.09.24
Court on 24.09.2024 03:04:42 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manbir & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 37 of 37