Delhi District Court
Jyoti Devi & Ors. vs . Praveen Kumar & Ors. on 30 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT/SAKET COURTS COMPLEX/NEW DELHI
MACT No. 3536/16
FIR No. 196/13
Police Station - Bachwada, District Begu Sarai (Bihar)
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kumar & Ors.
Fatal Case
1. Smt Jyoti Devi W/o Late Shri Subodh Jha (Wife of deceased)
2. Shri Nagendra Thakur S/o Shri Sita Ram Jha (Father of deceased)
3. Smt Sangyan Devi W/o Shri Nagendra Thakur (Mother of deceased)
4. Ashish Kumar S/o Late Shri Subodh Jha (Minor son of deceased)
5. Sudhanshu Kumar S/o Late Shri Subodh Jha (Minor son of deceased)
6. Shweta D/o Late Shri Subodh Jha (Minor daughter of deceased)
All permanent R/o Rajpur Chamar Tolla, Town/ Village Govindpur,
Anchal Bachhawada, District Begusarai, Bihar
and presently at: H. No. 3, Gali No. 5/5, Shakti Vihar,
Meethapur, Badarpur, New Delhi
(Petitioner No. 3 to 5, being minors, are represented through their
natural guardian/mother/ petitioner No. 1)
.............Petitioners/claimants
Verses
1. Shri Mahesh Singh S/o Shri Dani Ram Yadav (Driver)
R/o EWS4365, Avas Vikas, PS Kalyanpur,
District Kanpur, UP
2. Shri Mahender Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Raja Ram Yadav (Owner)
R/o H. No. 88A, Singhpur, Kacharkanpur, Kanpat, UP
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
E8, EPIP RIICO, Shahpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan302002
......................Respondents
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/ 17
Date of Institution : 16.12.2014
Date of reserving judgment/order : 23.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Present claim petition under Section 166/140 of Motor Vehicle was filed by the petitioners/ legal heirs of deceased namely Shri Subodh Jha (hereinafter referred to as deceased) for claiming compensation for the fatal injuries suffered by deceased in a road accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2013 at about 05.00 PM - 05.30 PM, deceased was coming from the side of Village Rajapur, PS Bachwada, District Begusarai, Bihar on motorcycle bearing registration No. BR33K8582. When he reached in front of House of Laxmi Das near National Highway28, offending truck bearing registration No. UP78BN4644, being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came with high speed and hit abovesaid motorcycle of deceased due to which deceased fell down on road and received fatal injuries.
3. FIR No. 196/13 under Section 279/427/304A IPC was got registered at Police Station Bachwada, District Begusarai. Police conducted investigation. After due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and chargesheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/427/304A of Indian Penal Code.
4. During proceedings, no written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. He was proceeded exparte by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2017.
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/ 175. During proceedings, respondent No. 2 filed his written statement denying the negligence of driver of truck bearing registration No. UP78BN4644. It is asserted that accident took place due to negligence of deceased himself as he crossed the road without giving any indication while driving his motorcycle and came towards wrong side and hit truck of answering respondent No. 2. It is asserted that driver of abovesaid truck was having a valid driving licence. It is asserted that abovesaid truck was duly insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of alleged accident, thus, liability, if any, to pay the compensation is that of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
6. During proceedings, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that present case is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is asserted that accident took place due to negligence of deceased himself and as such answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is asserted that answering respondent is entitled to defence available under Section 146/147/149/170 of Motor Vehicle Act. Involvement of offending vehicle is denied by the Insurance Company. However, it is admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. UP78BN4644 was insured in the name of respondent No. 2 vide policy No. 10003/31/13/478639 from 28.12.2012 to 27.12.2013.
7. Following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal on 04.08.2017 :
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road accident which took place on 28.06.2013 at about 05.30 PM involving truck bearing registration No. UP78BN4644 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3 (insurance company)? OPP MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/ 17
2. To what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to claim and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. Present claim petition was dismissed for nonappearance on 07.01.2016. Thereafter, petitioners filed application for restoration of claim petition. However, petitioners again failed to appear after filing abovesaid application for restoration of claim petition and petition was again dismissed for non appearance on 26.09.2016. Again, an application for restoration of claim petition was filed on behalf of petitioners which was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2016 and petition was restored to its original number and position. Hence, petitioners are not entitled for any interest from 07.01.2016 to 03.11.2016. Learned predecessor of this Tribunal has passed directions vide order dated 16.08.2017 that petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest from the date of framing of issues (04.08.2017) till the conclusion of PE. Thereafter, PE was concluded by the petitioners on 19.09.2017. Thus, in terms of order dated 16.08.2017, petitioners are not entitled for any interest from 04.08.2017 to 19.09.2017.
9. During evidence, petitioner No. 1/ Smt Jyoti Devi, wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the copy of Death Certificate as Ex. PW1/A, certified copy of postmortem report of deceased as Ex. PW1/B, certified copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/C, certified copy of final report as Ex. PW1/D, copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/E, copy of Aadhar Card of Ashish Kumar/minor son of deceased as Ex. PW1/F, copy of Aadhar Card of mother of deceased as Ex. PW1/G, copy of Aadhar Card of Shweta/ minor daughter of deceased as Ex.
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/ 17PW1/H, copy of Aadhar Card of Sudhanshu/ minor son of deceased as Ex. PW1/I and Voter ID of deceased as Mark 'X'.
10. Petitioners have got examined PW2 Manoj Kumar, as an eyewitness to the accident, who tendered his tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW2/1 and deposed regarding the manner of accident.
11. No other witness was examined by petitioners.
12. No witness was examined by any of the respondents.
13. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows : Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
14. PW2 Manoj Kumar has deposed in his affidavit of evidence that offending truck came in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the bike of deceased due to which he fell down on road and died. Nothing came in his cross examination which could create doubt on his version regarding the manner of accident. Furthermore, after due investigation by the police, respondent No. 1/driver of offending motorcycle was found accused of rash and negligent driving and he was chargesheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/427/304A of Indian Penal Code.
15. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/ 17 driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
16. As per above discussion, it is proved on record that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was driving offending motorcycle. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No. 1 who was driving offending motorcycle.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
17. Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/ 17 death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or is likely to be suffered by each of dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death : (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.' (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017) has dealt with the concept of 'just compensation'. Paragraph No. 57 of abovesaid Judgment is reproduced as under:
"57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, resonableness and equability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case.................. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equability....... The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplies to be applied....... It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
18. In the light of aforesaid guidelines and parameters, this Tribunal has to assess the compensation to be awarded to the claimants/petitioners.
19. Age of deceased: As per Voter Card Mark 'X', deceased was aged 27 years as on 01.01.2005 which implies that he was aged 35 years on the date of accident MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/ 17 (28.06.2013). In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying multiplier. Appropriate multiplier, as per 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.' [(2009) 6 SCC 121], is 16.
20. Income of deceased: PW1 Jyoti Devi, in her affidavit of evidence, has stated that her deceased husband was selfemployed being vegetable seller and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. There is nothing on record which could substantiate the claim of PW1 regarding monthly income of deceased. PW1 has also admitted during her crossexamination that she has not filed any document pertaining to employment and income of her deceased husband. In such circumstances, monthly income of deceased can be taken as per minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident.
21. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has argued that there is nothing on record to show that deceased was residing or doing any kind of business in Delhi and for the same reason minimum wage of Bihar should be considered. However, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that minimum wages of Delhi should be considered since deceased was doing the work of selling vegetables in Delhi though petitioners does not have any document regarding the same. PW1 Smt Jyoti Devi has deposed in her crossexamination that they were living in Delhi since 67 years. She has also deposed that at the time of accident, her deceased husband had gone to Bihar to attend a marriage function in his native village. She has admitted that she had applied for Aadhar Card of Delhi after the death of her husband. She has also admitted that she has not filed any ID proof or rent agreement pertaining to residence of her deceased husband in Delhi. Petitioners have neither clarified as to where the deceased used to sell vegetables in Delhi nor examined any witness to prove that he was MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/ 17 residing or working in Delhi. In such circumstances, monthly income of deceased can be taken as per minimum wages of unskilled workman in Bihar at the time of accident (28.06.2013). Minimum wages of Bihar is categorized on the basis of different industries e.g. Agarbati Industry, Agriculture etc. At the time of accident, minimum wages for an unskilled workman for most industries in Bihar was Rs.162/ per day or Rs.4,860/ per month.
22. Dependents & deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased had left behind his wife, parents and three minor children. However, father of deceased cannot be considered as dependent upon deceased. Thus, as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), ¼ (one fourth) of income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Hence, income of deceased is taken as Rs.3,645/ per month (Rs.4,860/ minus ¼ of Rs.4,860/).
23. Future prospects: In 'Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.' [(2012) 6 SCC 421], Hon'ble Apex Court has not accepted as a principle that a selfemployed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it is held that 'to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite'. Hon'ble Apex Court has also discussed as to what should be the addition in the income of deceased towards the future prospects and concluded that 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 MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/ 17 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. Since deceased was aged 35 years on the date of accident, there should be an increase of 40% in the income of deceased as per mandate of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, income of deceased after increasing the same by 40% comes out to be (Rs.3,645/ + 40% of Rs.3,645/) Rs.5,103/ per month.
24. Loss of Dependency: In view of the above, the calculation of loss of dependency is as follows : Rs.5,103/ X 12 X 16 = Rs.9,79,776/. In addition, petitioners are awarded amount of Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses respectively. Total compensation comes out to Rs.10,49,776/ (Rs. Ten Lac Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only).
RELIEF
25. I hereby award an amount of Rs.10,49,776/ (Rs. Ten Lac Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of present petition (excluding interest from from 07.01.2016 to 03.11.2016 and from 04.08.2017 to 19.09.2017) till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No. 1.
26. Liability: Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has argued that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition as deceased was permanent resident of Bihar, accident occurred out of Delhi, insurance policy issuing office is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of South East District and respondent No. 1 MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/ 17 and 2 are the residents of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the claim petition is legally not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its latest Two Bench Judgment in 'Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.' 2016 (1) SCALE 133 has held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. Hon'ble Apex Court has also cautioned against adopting hyper technical approach in interpreting a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving and said that the provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated, the Bench said. In view of guidelines passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Malati Sardar's Case (supra), this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petitions. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, being the insurer of offending vehicle is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
27. Share of petitioners in awarded amount:
Petitioner No. 1 (wife of deceased) : Rs.4,99,776/ Petitioner No. 2 (father of deceasedsince father of deceased was not financially dependent upon deceased, he is not granted any compensation) : NIL Petitioner No. 3 (mother of deceased) : Rs.2,50,000/ Petitioner No. 4 (minor son of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/ Petitioner No. 5 (minor son of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/ Petitioner No. 6 (minor daughter of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/ MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/ 17
28. Release of awarded amount:
(i) A sum of Rs.4,99,776/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 being wife of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.99,776/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to her on realization.
And for balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year.
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years.
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years.
4. Rs.50,000/ for period of 4 years.
5. Rs.50,000/ for period of 5 years.
6. Rs.50,000/ for period of 6 years.
7. Rs.50,000/ for period of 7 years.
8. Rs.50,000/ for period of 8 years.
(ii) A sum of Rs.2,50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being mother of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to her on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year.
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years.
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years.
4. Rs.50,000/ for period of 4 years.
(iii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 4 to 6 being minor children of deceased. Their entire award amount alongwith proportionate interest shall be kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of 21 years.
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/ 1729. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
30. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
31. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
32. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit/ savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
33. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners/claimants by MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 13/ 17 Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants/ petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants/ petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book or debit card be issued to claimants/ petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimants/ petitioners alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants/ petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii) On the request of claimants/ petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants/ petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
(x) In pursuance to the directions passed in Modified Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure as approved by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, petitioners/ claimants are directed to open a savings bank account in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence and the concerned bank is directed to not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the claimant(s) and if the same have already been issued, the bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 14/ 17 cheque book and/ or debit card shall be issued without permission of the Court.
The claimant(s) is directed to produce the copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make the endorsement on the passbook. The claimant(s) is directed to produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement as well as Aadhar Card and PAN Card before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing.
Directions for the respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
34. Respondent No. 3 will intimate to the claimants/ petitioners about having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
35. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance.
36. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 28.06.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by Not applicable as accident the Investigating Officer to the occurred out of Delhi and no Claims Tribunal. DAR has been filed.
3 Date of intimation of the accident by Not applicable as accident
the Investigating Officer to the occurred out of Delhi and no
Insurance Company. DAR has been filed.
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/ 17
4 Date of filing of Report under Section Not known.
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan
Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Not applicable as accident
Information Report (DAR) by the occurred out of Delhi and no
Investigating Officer before Claims DAR has been filed.
Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the Not applicable as accident
Insurance Company. occurred out of Delhi and no
DAR has been filed.
7 Date of service of DAR on the Not applicable as accident
claimant(s). occurred out of Delhi and no
DAR has been filed.
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Not applicable as accident
respects? occurred out of Delhi and no
DAR has been filed.
9 If not, state deficiencies in the DAR? Not applicable as accident
occurred out of Delhi and no
DAR has been filed.
10 Whether the police has verified the Not applicable as accident
documents filed with DAR? occurred out of Delhi and no
DAR has been filed.
11 Whether there was any delay or Not applicable as accident
deficiency on the part of the occurred out of Delhi and no
Investigating Officer? If so, whether DAR has been filed.
any action/ direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Not applicable as accident
Designated Officer by the Insurance occurred out of Delhi and no
Company. DAR has been filed.
13 Name, address and contact number of Not applicable as accident
the Designated Officer of the occurred out of Delhi and no
Insurance Company. DAR has been filed.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Not applicable as accident
the Insurance Company submitted occurred out of Delhi and no
his report within 30 days of the DAR? DAR has been filed. 15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company denied admitted the liability? If so, whether liability to pay compensation.
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/ 17 the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or Not applicable as accident deficiency on the part of the occurred out of Delhi and no Designated Officer of the Insurance DAR has been filed. Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to No legal offer has been filed.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
18 Date of the award. 30.01.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with No. the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined at Yes.
the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
21 Whether the photographs, specimen Photo ICards and other signatures, proof of residence and requisite information was particulars of bank account of the already on record. injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the award Part award amount is released amount to the claimant(s). and rest is kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 05.03.2018.
award.
Announced in open Court
Dated:30.01.2018 (Raj Kumar Chauhan)
POMACT02 (SE)Saket, New Delhi
30.01.2018
MACT No. 3536/16 Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/ 17