Delhi District Court
Hem Raj Sharma F/O, Deceased ... vs Mrigank (Hdfc Ergo) on 6 July, 2024
DLCT010084542016
Presented on : 14-07-2016
Registered on : 14-07-2016
Decided on : 06-07-2024
Duration : 08 Years
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 58065/16
1. MADHU SHARMA
W/o Sh.Hem Raj Sharma
2. HEM RAJ SHARMA
S/o Late Rattan Chand
Both R/o H.No.D-60,
Behind Abhinandan Hotel,
Sector-4, Airoli,
Navi Mumbai-400708 (M.S.) ...Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. MRIGANK CARD PVT LTD.
Through its Director:
Sh.Manoj Aggarwal
3776/6, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-10006. (Owner)
2. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
C-302, 3rd Floor, Ansal Plaza,
Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi.(Insurer)
3. MRIGANK AGGARWAL
S/o Sh. Manoj Aggarwal
R/o H.No.B-2, Obroi, Apptt,
2 Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines,
Delhi. (Driver JCL). ...Respondents.
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 1/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:42:46 +0530 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 04/04/2016
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 14/07/2016 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 06/07/2024
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 31/05/2024 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 MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 2/27Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:42:52 +0530 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 N.A. 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.D-60, Claimant(s). Behind Abhinandan Hotel, Sector-4, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-
400708 (M.S.)
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A DAR was filed on 14/07/2016 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of all the parties of this case. The said DAR was related to a motor vehicular accident dated 04/04/2016 in which one Sh. Sidharth Sharma S/o Sh. Hem Raj Sharma (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") lost his life. Subsequent to the filing of DAR, the present petition was filed on 17/01/2017 U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act seeking MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 3/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:00 +0530 compensation to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 04/04/2016 at about 08.50 PM, at a spot near Red Light on Shamnath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, Delhi. As per this petition, at the relevant time the deceased while crossing the road ( near Red Light on Shamnath Marg) and was hit by Silver Colored Mercedes Car bearing registration no. DL-2CF-3000 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd ( company owned by father of driver JCL) which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed by JCL who was accompanied by his six friends. It is further stated that as a consequence of this hit, the deceased bounced for about 15-20 feet in air and then fell on the ground incurring fatal injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was declared dead at 11.43 PM on the same day. An FIR no. 118/2016 PS Civil Lines U/s 304/109/201/2023 IPC & 4/181, 5/180, 134/187 MV Act was registered by the police. Petitioners claim that the deceased was aged around 32 years and was pursuing higher education and before pursuing higher education he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Petitioners further claim that they were completely dependent on the income of the deceased. R-1 is stated to be the Director of the registered owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is stated to driver to be the of the offending vehicle and R-2 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. Parties were directed to file their written statements. Same were filed by them.
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 4/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:06 +0530
2. A joint written statement was filed by R-1 and R-3 in which they denied the contents of the petition. R-1 and R-3 also filed amended written statement.
3. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by its driver who did not have a valid and effective driving license. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 03/04/2019, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Siddharth Sharma suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 04/04/2016 at about 8.50 PM involving Car bearing registration No. DL-2CF-M-3000 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 3 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No.1 Hem Raj Sharma, father of the deceased, as PW-1. PW-1, vide his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the deceased was his son who lost his life on MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 5/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:12 +0530 04/04/2016 due to an accident dated 04/04/2016 involving the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-3. He further deposed that the deceased was 32 years old and was pursuing higher education and before pursuing higher education he was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and that the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. He relied upon following documents :-
"DAR alongwith documents is Ex. CW-1/1; Chargesheet alongwith documents including Disc of CCTV footage, traffic violation history of driver etc. is Ex. CW-1/2(colly); The documents relating to work history of Sidharth Sharma pertains to Sitel India, Spanco Telesystems & Solutions Ltd., Vasu Chemicals, KNP Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rudraksh Metals Pvt. Ltd. and One Stop 4U Pvt. Ltd., which are exhibited as Ex. CW-1/3(colly); Admission letter of deceased is Ex. CW-1/4; Copy of my Govt. ID Card is Ex. CW-1/5; and Birth certificate of deceased is Ex. CW-1/6''. 5.1 PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 3. In his cross examination he deposed that he is residing in Bombay for the last 50 years. He further deposed that on 04.04.2016, he was in Himachal Pradesh at his native place. He further deposed that he came to know from the chargesheet that the driver of the offending vehicle was habitual in traffic rules violation. He denied the suggestion that the MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Digitally Pages signed No. 6/27 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.06 15:43:17 +0530 contents of para no. 3 of his affidavit regarding habitual violation of traffic rules by the driver are incorrect. He further denied the suggestion that Ex. CW-1/3(colly) and Ex. CW-1/4 are forged and fabricated documents and due to this, he has not produced their originals. He further denied the suggestion that his son was financially dependent upon him during that time.
5.2 Petitioners further examined Sh. Sajeel Khanna, Executive Vice President, Bluent Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., at 2nd Floor, B-21, Lajpat Nagar-II, South Delhi, Delhi-110024. He proved the original of offer letter dated 29.03.2016 vide Ex. PW-
2/1 (OSR) and it was issued by Ms. Neelima upon his instructions. He was cross examined by all the respondents. In his cross-examination he deposed that he was knowing deceased Sh.Sidharth Sharma. He stated that he was resident of his neighborhood and he met him for the first time in the marriage of his sister Shilpa. He stated that he had visiting terms with the family of the deceased including Shilpa. He further deposed that he has been associated as a co-founder of the company since 2003. He stated that in the year 2016 his company was having around 60-65 employees. He further stated that the deceased never gave any formal application for seeking job. He stated that deceased came to him for his guidance, however, later on showed his interest for job and submitted his documents pertaining to his education and experience in March, 2016. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW2/1 was not handed over to the deceased as original was lying in his record. He stated that ability to network with the client is the criteria for appointment to the post of account officer ITAPM. He stated that the said position was vacant at that time. He stated that the last drawn MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 7/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:21 +0530 salary of the person might be Rs. One Lakh per month at that time. He stated that account manager ITAPM is the same position as Project Manager IT application services. (During the admission of document Ex. PW2/X1 an objection was raised as same did not pertain to position account manager ITAPM but for Project Manager IT application services, the said objection is dismissed as witness has given justification for production of the said document as both the positions are same). He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW2/X1 does not relate to the post of account manager ITAPM. He admitted that he is the signatory of collective representation of the neighborhood regarding the accident to the police authority for proper investigation for corrective measures for avoidance of such accident. He stated that he has multiple casual discussions for over a year with the deceased before offering a job to him and he had long conversations with him for the said job. He admitted that upon his recommendation the offer letter was given to the deceased. He stated that he spoke about the job offer with the petitioners 04 months before the accident. He stated that he also wrote a reply of email of the petitioners regarding employment of their deceased son. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not qualified enough to offer a job of account manager ITAPM. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed at the instance of sister of deceased. He further denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-2/X1 is false and fabricated document. He further denied the suggestion that at the said document was manufactured few days back and that is why it was not produced in initial stage. He further denied the suggestion that the mail Ex. PW-2/X2 is forged and fabricated document. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW-2/X2 is a false MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 8/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:27 +0530 and fabricated document. He further denied the suggestion that he is appearing on the instructions of the petitioners and not on the summons.
5.3 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
6. R-1 examined himself as RW1 in his defence. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioners as well as by Ld.Counsel for Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that except from himself and his wife namely Indu Aggarwal, there is no other director of Respondent No. 1 M/s.Mrigank Cards Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that Kapil Kumar Mishra was the employee of respondent no. 1. He denied the suggestion that he was having knowledge that his son drove the car which was being used by his family and he never stopped him for doing so. He further denied the suggestion that there was no clear instructions to the driver not to allow anyone to drive the car. He further denied the suggestion that he made a false statement in Para No. 3 of the affidavit regarding Kapil Kumar Mishra taking R-3 whenever R-3 had to go anywhere. He denied the suggestion that there was no clear instruction not to allow to anyone to drive the car. He admitted that on 04/04/2016 at about 8.30 P.M, he was at home with his wife and he came to know about accident from his son. He denied that his son was previously involved in an accident pertaining to Varun Jain. He denied the suggestion that his minor son was driving his vehicle with his knowledge.
6.1 R-1 further examined one Ms. Indu Aggarwal as RW-2. She deposed vide her affidavit Ex.RW-2/A. She was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioners as well as by Ld. MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 9/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:33 +0530 Counsel for R-2/ Insurance Company. She denied the suggestion that there was no clear instructions to the driver not to allow anyone to drive the car. She further denied the suggestion that on the date of accident, her minor son was driving the offending vehicle with her knowledge.
6.2 R-2/ Insurance Company examined its official Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Dy Manager, as R2W1. She deposed vide her affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. She has relied upon the following documents:-
'Copy of letter and authorization are Ex. R2W1/1; Copy of Insurance Policy is Ex. R2W1/2; Copy of notice dated 04.02.2024 is Ex. R2W1/3 and its postal receipt is Ex. R2W1/4.' 6.3 She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-1 only. In her cross-examination she deposed that in Para No. 5 of her affidavit has been stated on account of the fact that driver of the offending car was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident as he was a minor which is a fundamental violation of the insurance policy.
FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether the deceased Sh. Siddharth Sharma suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 04/04/2016 at about 8.50 PM involving Car bearing registration No. DL-2CF-M-
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 10/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:38 +0530 3000 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 3 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined PW-1 Sh. Hem Raj Sharma, father of the deceased. PW-1 deposed during the course of present enquiry that the at the relevant date, time and place, the deceased while crossing the road ( near Red Light on Shamnath Marg) was hit by Silver Colored Mercedes Car bearing registration no. DL-2CF- 3000 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") owned by MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 11/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:45 +0530 Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd ( company owned by father of driver JCL) which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed by JCL who was accompanied by his six friends. It is further stated that as a consequence of this hit, the deceased bounced for about 15-20 feet in air and then fell on the ground incurring fatal injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was declared dead at 11.43 PM on the same day. He was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for all the respondents but nothing favourable came to the respondents. In totality, the testimony of PW-1 seems reliable and worth acting upon.
11. As per the evidence of R-1, it is evident that R-3 was driving the offending car at the time of accident. The police conducted a thorough investigation and filed a charge-sheet against R-1, his wife Indu Aggarwal and driver Kapil Mishra for commission of offencne under Sections 109/304/201/2023 IPC & 5/180 MV Act. The offending car was driven by R-3 and R-1 has been charge-sheeted for intentionally aiding by legal omission by allowing minor son to drive the car. The JCL was produced before JJB on 14/04/2016. Initial FIR was registered u/s 279/337/304A IPC. However, considering the fact that Manoj Aggarwal failed to stop his son from driving the car despite knowing that his son is continuously violating the traffic rules section 109 IPC was added and considering the CCTV footage Section 304 IPC was added in the FIR. The driver Kapil Kumar Mishra was charge-sheeted for giving false information to the police despite knowing that was caused by R-3 in order to save R-3 from legal action. These facts itself present a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, charge-
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 12/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:43:51 +0530 sheet, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle, Mechanical Inspection report of the Car of the deceased, arrest memo, seizure memo and Postmortem Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. 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-3.
13. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-3, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, respondents have not explained the circumstances under which the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of R-3. 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-3 at the relevant time.
14. So far as the plea taken on behalf of R-1 and R-3 that petitioners have not produced any positive evidence to show that driver of the offending vehicle was infact negligent or rash, the said plea pales into insignificance for the reasons that ample evidence has been brought on record for proving the same. Therefore, the plea for treating the petition u/s 163A of MV Act stands rejected.
15. So far as the plea taken on behalf of R-1 and R-3 that petitioners have failed to discharge their onus of proving negligence on the part of R-3 as Section 304A IPC was deleted from the FIR and Section 304 IPC was invoked, the said plea is MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No.signed Digitally 13/27 by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.06 15:43:56 +0530 fallacious on its face as apparently the death of the deceased is an outcome of motor vehicular accident. Section 304 IPC was added considering the CCTV footage which shows the dangerous driving by the R-3. Considering the intensity of the horrific accident the police imposed Section 304 IPC.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that accident was outcome of negligence and rashness on the part of R-3 at the relevant time.
17. In view of 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.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R- 3 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 R-3 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.
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 14/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.06 15:44:02 +0530 COMPENSATION
20. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
21. So far as the plea taken by the respondents that wife of the deceased was not impleaded in the petition, which warrants rejection, the same appears to be vague as the facts would show that wife has been separated and even in the DAR police has not stated that she is the dependent of the deceased. Regarding, the another plea that father is a pensioner therefore this dis- entitles him to be a dependent holds water. As per the fact the father is receiving monthly pension and accordingly he is not considered as a dependent of the deceased.
22. So far as the another contention raised on behalf of all the respondents that there is no cogent proof of income of the deceased and the evidence of PW-2 regarding the income proof of the deceased is doubtful, the said contention is baseless as the evidence of PW-2 has been reliable and the document Ex.PW2/1 has been duly proved. PW-2 gave a plausible explanation regarding the job given to the deceased which is Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 gave plausible explanation and justification for offering a job to the deceased. His evidence would show that he had good number of conversations with the deceased and had knowledge of his educational qualifications before he was offered a job. The evidence of PW-2 would show that he replied to the e-mail of the father of the deceased after the accident and same is Ex. PW2/X2 which substantiates his testimony regarding the timings of the job and its authenticity.
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 15/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:07 +0530
23. Regarding the plea of the respondents that deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month in the month of January, 2015 and the job offer in the month of March, 2016 offered a higher sum of salary, the said plea can be discounted on the premise that in corporate sector the salary is directly related to the education, experience and the capability of a person. A higher salary is offered to persons who possess required skills for a job. Therefore, the mere fact in the month of January, 2015 deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 25,000/- is not sufficient to dislodge that evidence of PW-2 which shows that after due deliberations and telephonic conversations and considering his potential deceased was offered a job of Account Manager- ITAPM with BluEnt e Solutions (P) Ltd.
24. Also, the plea taken on behalf of respondents that deceased was not a replacement of Mukul Kumar Sharma is baseless as in corporate structure the position can be interchanged subject to the qualification, experience and managerial skill required for the position. PW-2 categorically stated that these two positions has almost same work profile. Therefore, in these circumstances, considering the qualifications of the deceased and his job experience in the light of testimony of PW-2, the job offer Ex.PW2/1 can not be presumed as far fetched but a reasonable one. Accordingly, in these facts and circumstances, the income of the deceased can be based upon Ex. PW2/A as the said job offer was immediately before the accident. As per the same the deceased was offered a salary of Rs.10 Lakhs per annum.
25. So far as the plea that PW-2 was a neighbour and opted to testify to help bereaved family, the said plea is also vague and baseless as the testimony of PW-2 clearly shows that he MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages Digitally No. signed16/27 PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:14 +0530 interviewed the deceased and considering his testimonials and capability offered him a job. Also, there is no bar that a person cannot work in the company of a person residing in the neighborhood. Rather in such set up a known person is preferred.
26. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of his death. They have also placed the copy of birth certificate of the deceased Ex.CW-1/6, as per which date of birth of deceased was 05/06/1983. The date of accident is 04/04/2016. Going by the said document of the deceased, the age of deceased would be around 32 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 '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
27. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his parents. However, only Petitioner No. 1 (mother of the deceased is considered to be dependent upon the deceased only.
28. Irrespective of this, One half 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 32 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 17/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:22 +0530 also held entitled to an addition of 50% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
29. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.1,20,00,000/-(Rs.10,00,000/- X 150/100 X 1/2 X 16). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
30. 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": -
Filial Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2)
31. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs.1,28,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 88,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
32. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 18/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:29 +0530 Rs.1,21,28,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Only) (Rs.1,20,00,000/- + Rs.1,28,000/-), along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e.14/07/2016. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
33. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
33.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty 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 260 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 260 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 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.68,17,760/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Only ) is also MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 19/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:35 +0530 directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner no. 1.
33.2 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs.72,160/- ( Rupees Seventy Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Only). The entire awarded amount be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his 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 Petitioner no. 2.
34. 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 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
35. On the point of liability, on behalf of Ld. Counsel for MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 20/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:39 +0530 R-1 & R-3, it was contended that the offending car was insured with R-2/ Insurance Company and there is no willful or intentional breach on the part of R-1 as he never authorized R-3 to drive the car. Also, R-2 has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the averment that R-1 has allowed R-3 to drive the vehicle without a valid and effective driving license.
35.1 However, on behalf of R-2/ Insurance Company the said plea was resisted submitting that R-1 was well aware that his son was out with car with his friends while he was at home at the time of accident. Also, while police gave notice U/s 133 MV Act to R-1, he replied that his car was driven by his minor son. Further, the conclusion of the charge-sheet has not been disputed by R-1. R-1 and R-3 have committed fundamental breach of insurance policy terms. It was also contended that R-1 was well aware that his son is using car regularly violating traffic rules and was fined earlier and also met with an accident with Varun Jain.
36. Considering the rival contentions of the respondents qua the liability for compensating the petitioners, the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that R-1 is trying to take an escape route by feigning ignorance of the acts of his minor son. As per the facts the R-1 was well aware of previous traffic violations committed by R-3 and the previous accident, however, he kept ignoring the same unrealizing that same can rattle the lives of other road users. Infact the father Manoj Aggarwal willfully cultivated illegal behaviour of his minor son by ignoring his act at the cost of other road users. He failed to realize even from his past acts that allowing his minor son to drive can be disastrous to MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 21/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:44:45 +0530 the other road users. Instead of preventing his minor son from driving a Mercedes car he chose to ignore the same which implies a tacit consent on his part. The very fact that at the time of accident he was at home, same was all the more reason to stop his son from taking the car from the home for a joy ride. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the plea on behalf of R-1 seeking exoneration of liability stands dismissed. This entitles R-2 to be granted recovery rights against R-1/Mrigank Card Pvt Ltd. Ordered accordingly. The judgments filed by the R-1 are respectfully distinguished.
37. R-2/ Insurance Company 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 petitioner 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 @ 8% per annum, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
38. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Digitally Pages No. 22/27 signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.06 15:44:49 +0530 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 mentioned at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
39. 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.
40. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be 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.
File be consigned to Record Room.
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 23/27 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.06 15:44:54 +0530 A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 06.08.2024. PANKAJ by Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:00 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) On this 06.07.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/06/07/2024 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 : 04/04/2016
2. Name of the deceased : Siddharth Sharma
3. Age of the deceased : 32 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Job
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of job offer
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 24/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:05 +0530 S. No. Name Age Relation (1) Madhu Sharma 64 Years Mother of the deceased (2) Hem Raj Sharma 73 Years Father of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Annual Income of the Rs.10,00,000/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 50% (B)
9. Less-Personal expenses One half deduction has of the deceased(C) been done
10. Annual loss of Rs.7,50,000/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of As above MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 25/27 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:11 +0530 dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '16'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.1,20,00,000/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.88,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs. 20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.1,21,28,000/-
COMPENSATION(F+
G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.77,61,920/- (rounded MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages Digitally No. 26/27signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:18 +0530 date of award(M) off)
22. Total amount including Rs.1,98,89,920/- interest(L + M)
23. Award amount released P-1 : Rs.68,17,760/-
P-2 : Rs.72,160/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioner (s)
26.
Next date for compliance 06.08.2024
of the award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 06.07.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir wit h directions to put up the same on 06.08.2024.
Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:24 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/06.07.2024 MACT No. 58065/16 Madhu Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mrigank Card Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Pages No. 27/27 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.06 15:45:28 +0530