Delhi District Court
Usha vs Mandeep Mann on 16 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
USHA & ORS. VS. MANDEEP & ORS.
MACP No.147/17
1. Smt. Usha (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar
2. Dhairya (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar
3. Smt. Kranti Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Rajbir (Deleted vide Order dated 29.02.2024)
4. Master Sivansh (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar
Minor sons being represented through their
mother/natural guardian Smt. Usha/petitioner no. 1
All R/o H.No. B-2/50, Bharat Vihar,
Kakrola, New Delhi-78.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Mandeep Mann (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop,
R/o H.No. B-31, Harsukh Apartment,
Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Also at :- Billu Colony, Noorwala,
Panipat, Haryana.
2. Mrs. Akansha Mann (Owner)
W/o Sh. Mandeep Mann
R/o H.No. H-138, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh-II,
New Delhi-110021.
MACP No. 147/17
Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 1 of 25
3. Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
rd
303-310, 3 Floor, Kailash Building, K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 22.02.2017 Date of filing of DAR : 20.09.2016 Date of framing of issues : 07.12.2016 Date of concluding arguments : 08.01.2025 Date of decision : 16.01.2025 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Pawan Kumar in a motor accident that took place on 03.08.2016, at about 03:20 pm at Airport to Subroto Park Road, Near Central School No. 2, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.263/16, under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a car bearing registration No. DL-3CC-7133, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) Sh. Mandeep Mann, owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) Ms. Akansha Mann and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 03.08.2016 at about 03:20 PM, the deceased was going towards Airport side from Subroto Park on his scooty bearing registration No. DL-4SNC-6576. When he reached near Central School No. 2 on the Airport Road, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3CC-7133, being driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooty from front side due to which he fell down on the road and sustained MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 2 of 25 grievous injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where his MLC was prepared.
3. Respondent no. 1 filed his reply wherein it is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that he is the husband of respondent no. 2 who is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the deceased was coming from wrong side and was trying to cross the road at a high speed and also carrying big boxes along with him on his two wheeler. It is further submitted by R-1 that he was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.
4. Respondent no.2 filed his reply wherein it is submitted that she is wife of respondent no. 1 and is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.
5. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its reply wherein it is submitted that the accident took place due to sole negligence of deceased himself as he was driving his scooty in a rash and negligent manner and hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 23.05.2016 to 22.05.2017 subject to certain terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
6. On 07.12.2016, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal as:-
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.08.2016 at about MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 3 of 25 03:20 pm, Airport to Subroto Park Road, Near Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 2, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-3CCC-7133 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Usha examined herself as PW1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon certain documents. Copy of her Aadhaar card is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). MLC of deceased is Ex. PW1/2. Copy of postmortem report of deceased is Ex. PW1/3. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/3A. Copy of site plan is Ex. PW1/4. Copy of driving license is Ex. PW1/5. Copy of RC is Ex. PW1/6. Copy of insurance policy is Ex. PW1/7. Copy of job ID card of deceased is Mark PW1/8. Copy of job ID card of deceased issued by Friends Detective Security Services is Mark PW1/9, copy of job card issued by B.K. Enterprises is Mark PW1/10. Copies of character certificate of deceased is Mark PW1/11 (colly). Copy of receipt of Just Dial in favour of deceased is Mark PW1/12. Copy of NCC Camp certificate of deceased is Mark PW1/13. Copy of NCC Camp certificate of deceased is Mark PW1/14. Visiting card of deceased is Ex. PW1/15. Copy of photographs of shop of deceased is Ex. PW1/16 (colly) (5 pages). Copy of school leaving certificate of deceased is Mark PW1/17. Copies of receipts bearing signatures of deceased is Mark PW1/18 (colly).
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 4 of 258. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of final arguments on 12.12.2024, the petitioners produced the originals of documents Mark PW1/8 to Mark PW1/14 and Mark PW1/17 and these documents were exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/14 and Ex. PW1/17. The petitioners have also placed on record copy of voter ID card, Aadhaar card and driving license of deceased (originals seen and returned) as well as contract form of Just Dial bearing no. 11325470 dated 31.08.2013 filled up with pencil.
9. The petitioners have examined Sh. Asif, S/o Sh. Rafiq, R/o Village Jharoda, New Delhi as PW2, who is an eye witness of the accident.
10. Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon certain documents. Copy of his driving license is Ex. R1W1/1. Copy of DD No. 20A is Ex. R1W1/3. Seizure memo is Ex. R1W1/4. Seizure memo of driving license is Ex. R1W1/5.
11. Respondent no. 1 has also examined Retired SI Bijender Singh from Delhi Police as RW3 who has placed on record copy of ID card as Ex. RW3/1 (OSR).
12. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 has placed on record the certified copy of S/A under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of R-1 recorded in the criminal case.
13. The Tribunal heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. N.K. Mishra and Sh. Sachin Kumar, Ld. Counsels for petitioners, Sh. Aditya Verma, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2 and Sh. Kamaldeep, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company and has carefully perused the entire case record along with written MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 5 of 25 submissions filed on behalf of petitioners and R-1 & R-2 as well as case laws.
14. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
15. ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.08.2016 at about 03:20 pm, Airport to Subroto Park Road, Near Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 2, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL-3CCC-7133 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
16. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3CCC-7133.
17. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Sh. Asif, S/o Sh. Rafiq as PW2 who deposed that on 03.08.2016, in between 3 pm to 4 pm, he saw an accident between a black colour scooty and a car due to which rider of scooty fell down on the road and the driver of offending car stopped another car for taking driver of the scooty to the hospital while stating that he would be coming at the hospital. He further deposed that the scooty was coming from the side of Jharoda and the car was coming from the side of Airport. Upon court query, the deceased stated that the above accident took place due to fault of driver of the car as the car was being driven at high speed and there was no divider on the said road. He further deposed that the police had made inquiries from him about the accident after 1 to MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 6 of 25 2 days of the accident and his statement was recorded by the police. He volunteered to state that on the day of accident, he was in the process of moving his rehri to some other side due to some movement of the police.
18. During cross examination, he deposed as under :-
"XXX by Ms. Divya, Advocate on behalf of Sh. Joginder Tuli, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2.
I am assisting my maternal uncle for selling fruits on a rehri. I am not aware about any license granted by any concerned authority to place the rehri on the said road. I do not remember for how many years I used to assist my maternal uncle. I cannot tell the colour of offending vehicle. Further cross examination is deferred as it is lunch time.
(AFTER LUNCH) XXX by Ms. Divya, Advocate on behalf of Sh. Joginder Tuli, Ld. Counsel for R-1 and R-2.
I cannot tell the speed of the offending car at the time of accident. The accident had occurred due to head on collision. The above road is not one way and traffic for both sides is allowed on the said road. It is wrong to suggest that the above road is one way and traffic only from the side from Airport towards Jharoda and Dhaula Kuan is allowed and reverse traffic is not allowed. It is correct that there is a flyover also on the said road, which is a highway leading towards of Gurugram. The site plan of place of accident was not prepared at my instance.
I was only at a distance of around 5-10 yards when I had seen the accident. The car came from my backside. I did not go for help of the injured. Vol. As I have already stated that he was taken to hospital by driver of the offending car in some other car. It is wrong to suggest that the accident occurred due to negligence of the scooty driver as he was coming on a wrong side at high speed and without wearing any helmet. It is wrong to suggest that I did not witness the above accident or that I am a planted witness by the police in collusion with his family member or that I am deposing falsely at instance of the claimants. XXX by Sh. Kamaldeep, Ld. Counsel for R-3. Adopted as above."
19. I shall now refer to the testimony of respondent MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 7 of 25 no.1/driver who examined himself as R1W1. In his affidavit in evidence, he narrated the manner of accident as follows :-
"2. I say that on the date of incident i.e. on 03.08.2016 at about 3:20 pm, I was driving the above-mentioned car owned by Respondent no. 2 with the consent of Respondent no. 2.
3. That I say that I was coming from my house located in Dwarka to my in laws home located at Moti Bagh when this incident took place and was passing through Airport to Subroto Park Road, near Kendriya Vidhyalaya no. 2, Delhi Cantt.
4. I say that it was the deceased namely Pawan Kumar, owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-4SNC-6576 make Honda Activa Black Colour, was coming from wrong side and was trying to cross the one way road in high speed and was also carrying big boxes along with him on his above- mentioned two wheeler.
Copy of the Site Plan of the Road and place of accident is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/4.
5. That the deceased had no control over his vehicle. As a result when he tried to put brake on his scooty all of a sudden, he lost control and could not control the speed and collided with the car driven by Respondent no. 1, who was on his side and also the right side of the road."
20. During his cross examination, R1W1 admitted that the FIR had been lodged against him in respect of the accident and that he did not lodge any complaint in writing to the police or any other authority against his false implication in the case.
21. Respondent no. 1 also examined Retired SI Bijender Singh from Delhi Police as RW3 who had prepared the MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 8 of 25 chargesheet and had filed the complete DAR before this Tribunal. He deposed that the accident had occurred at Jharoda Village and the said road was one way road stretching from Airport and going towards Subroto Park. He further deposed that the deceased was going on the wrong side of the road.
22. RW3 deposed that he had visited the spot of accident after about 8 to 9 days of the accident along with ASI Mehtab Singh (first IO). It was ASI Mehtab Singh who had prepared the site plan. RW3 further deposed that there was no diversion or blockage in respect of vehicular movement from Airport towards Subroto Park. There was no barricading by the MCD or PWD on the said road. Even as per intimation and information by ASI Mehtab Singh, there was no barricading by MCD or PWD. RW3 denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, the said road was open both ways because of diversion.
23. In the site plan annexed with the chargesheet, no diversion or one way road having been opened both ways has been shown. On one hand, investigation does not disclose any diversion, on the other hand, PW2/eye witness Sh. Asif has deposed in his cross examination that the said road was not one way and traffic for both sides was allowed. However, what is common in the findings of IO after investigation and testimony of PW2 is that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1. In the site plan (Ex. PW1/4), spot of accident is shown at the left side of the road which negates the contention of R-1 that the accident occurred when the deceased tried to cross the road.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 9 of 2524. DAR in the present case corroborates the assertion of the petitioners that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1.
25. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. Thus, acquittal of R-1 in the criminal case has no bearing on the present case.
27. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 10 of 25 wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
28. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CCC-7133 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
29. During his cross examination, PW2/eye witness has deposed that the accident took place due to head on collision between the scooty of the deceased and the offending vehicle. Even if it is assumed that the said road was open for traffic coming both ways on account of a diversion, both the deceased as also R-1 should have been more careful while driving. Such circumstances call for imputation of 50% contributory negligence upon the deceased.
30. Therefore, 50% amount out of the awarded amount be deducted towards the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
31. ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 11 of 2532. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
33. The petitioner no. 1 being wife of deceased stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased husband was skilled electrician cum Lift Operation and was earning Rs 22,000/- per month. She further deposed that besides this, the deceased was also running his own workshop and earning more than Rs 30,000/- per month and the total income of deceased was Rs 50,000/- to Rs 60,000/- per month.
34. During cross examination, she admitted that she has not placed on record any salary slip of deceased. She deposed that she did not know whether the deceased used to pay income tax or not. She further admitted that she has not placed on record the ownership documents relating to shop shown in photographs Ex. PW1/16 (colly). She volunteered to state that the shop was in the name of his father in law and she could produce the documents if required.
35. Perusal of employer's certificate Ex. PW1/11 (colly) reveal that the deceased had worked with Nanda Electricals as Electrician w.e.f. 27.07.1997 to 15.03.2002. Photocopies of other MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 12 of 25 certificates Mark PW1/11 (colly) show that he worked as Electrician with Sawhney Electrical Works from May 2002 to November 2007 and worked as Electrician with Friends Detective Security Services from January 2007 to July 2008.
36. Further, perusal of visiting card of deceased Ex. PW1/15 as well as photographs of shop of deceased Ex. PW1/16 (colly) reflect that the deceased was running one electric shop under the name and style of Shri Vishwakarma Electricals.
37. No income proof, however, has been placed on record in respect of the deceased regarding his income at the time of accident. Therefore, minimum wages of a skilled worker in Delhi shall be considered as income of the deceased, which were Rs. 11,622/- at the relevant time of accident.
38. During the course of final arguments, the petitioners have placed on record copy of voter ID card, Aadhaar card, driving license of deceased (originals seen, compared and returned). In Aadhaar card of deceased, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 26.09.1980 whereas in driving license of deceased, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 12.05.1980. The Tribunal shall rely upon the Aadhaar card to determine the date of birth. Hence, going by the Aadhaar card of the deceased, the age of deceased on the date of accident, i.e. 03.08.2016 comes out to be around 35 years, 10 months and 8 days. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 13 of 25(2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '16' is applicable in the present case.
39. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by four petitioners i.e. wife, children and mother of deceased. However, the petitioner no. 3, i.e. mother of deceased Smt. Kranti Devi had expired during the trial of present matter.
40. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LawSuit (SC) 6, decided on 05.01.202 1, wherein it was held as under :-
"10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant- claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings."
41. Hence, in view of above judgment as well as in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
42. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 14 of 25 Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are held entitled to the addition of 40% towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency in the petitioners case comes to Rs.23,42,995/- (rounded off) {(Rs.11,622/-X 12 X 16 X 3/4 X140/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
43. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
44. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,29,900/- [(Rs.40,000/- + MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 15 of 25 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
45. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,72,895/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five only) (Rs. 23,42,995/- + Rs.2,29,900/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. As already discussed, 50% amount out of the awarded amount be deducted towards the contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Accordingly, the awarded amount after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards interim compensation and 50% amount towards contributory negligence, comes out to be Rs. 12,61,448/- (rounded off). Therefore, the petitioners are held entitled to the sum of Rs. 12,61,448/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR.
APPORTIONMENT
46. Since petitioner no. 3 had expired during the trial of present matter, the entire awarded amount is being apportioned amongst the petitioner no. 1, 2 and 4, i.e. wife and sons of deceased. Accordingly, out of the awarded amount, 70% share is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 15% share each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2 and 4, i.e. children of deceased.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 16 of 25RELEASE
47. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 07.09.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
48. The entire shares of petitioner no. 2 and 4 shall be kept in FDRs for the period till they attain the age of majority. However, the monthly interest accrued thereon shall also be released in the above bank account of their mother/petitioner no.1 in order to meet their educational and other expenses and amounts of FDRs on maturity would be released in their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 07.09.2018.
49. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 17 of 25 amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
50. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
51. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
52. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
53. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
54. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
55. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 18 of 2556. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
57. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
58. In view of foregoing discussions, all the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no. 3. being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 19 of 2559. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
60. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
61. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
62. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 03.08.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s) MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 20 of 25
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 20.09.2016 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer not filed petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 16.01.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 07.09.2018 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 21 of 25
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish produced the 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 As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were No examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
63. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 21.04.2025. Digitally signed by VRINDA VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2025.01.16 16:56:51 +0530 Announced in the open court. (Vrinda Kumari) on 16.01.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 22 of 25 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 03.08.2016
2. Name of the deceased Smt. Pawan Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 35 years, 10 months and 8 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of skilled worker in Delhi.
5. Income of the deceased Rs.11,622/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Usha 32 years Wife
ii) Dhairya Minor Son
iii) Shivam Minor Son
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 11,622/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs.4,648.8
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs.4,067.7 deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.12,203.1 [(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,46,437.2 (D x 12) 12. Multiplier 16
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.23,42,995/-
(D x 12 x E = F) MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 23 of 25
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.12,61,448/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L) (after deducting
the amount of
Rs.50,000/-
towards interim
award and 50%
towards
contributory
negligence)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date
AWARDED of filing of DAR till
the date of award to
be deposited within
30 days and 9%
thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.7,87,354/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.20,48,802/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 20,49,000/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=Nil
P-4=Nil
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=Entire share P-4=Entire share MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 24 of 25
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 21.04.2025 award Digitally signed VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.16 16:56:39 +0530 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 16.01.2025 MACP No. 147/17 Usha & Ors. Vs. Mandeep & Ors. 16.01.2025 Page 25 of 25