Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajo Devi vs Anurag Bhati (Driver) on 20 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST-01):DELHI
New MACT Case No. 477543/16
1. Smt. Rajo Devi
W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander
2. Sh. Parveen Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander
3. Smt. Meena
D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander
4. Sh. Ravinder
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander
5. Sh. Devender Dalal,
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chander
All R/o Mandothi (53)
Mandothi, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana-124506
........Petitioners
Versus
1. Anurag Bhati (Driver)
S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh Bhati,
R/o A-1/281,
Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi
2. Sh. Mahinder Singh Bhati (Owner)
R/o A-1/281, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 19.01.2016 (DAR)
Date of reserving order/judgment : 10.01.2018
New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 1/19
Date of pronouncement: : 20.01.2018
AWARD
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.01.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not mentioned Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2)
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the Offending vehicle was not insured Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 13.01.2016 173 Cr. P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 19.01.2016 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the Offending vehicle was not insured Insurance Company. (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 19.01.2016
(s). (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR ---
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 2/19 any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Offending vehicle was not insured Officer by the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of N.A. the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the Insurance Company N.A. admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
(Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to N.A. the offer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 24)
18. Date of the award 20.01.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with Yes the consent of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed Yes to open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) 20.01.2018 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 claimant(s) and make an endorsement New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 3/19 to this effect on the passbook(s).
(Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced The petitioner No.1 is directed to the passbook of their savings bank open her bank account near the account near the place of their place of her residence and to residence along with the endorsement, place on record a copy thereof PAN Card and Adhaar Card? (Clause within 15 days from today.
18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the The petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo W/o Claimant(s) (Clause 27) Sh. Jagdish Chander R/o Mandothi (53), Mandothi, Bahadurgarh Jhajjar, Haryana-
124506
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of ---- the claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC Code. (Clause 27)
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account (s) in near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition? (Clause 27)
1. This judgment -cum- award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased Sh. Jagdish Chander in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.2016, the deceased was crossing the road opposite Peera Garhi Depot, then, all of a sudden, the respondent No.1 came from Peera Garhi Chowk by driving his motor cycle Royal Enfiled No. PB-0814-2187 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. It has been further stated that due to the forceful impact, the deceased fell down and became unconscious. It has been further stated that the deceased was New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 4/19 taken to Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar by the PCR where the doctors of the said hospital declared him brought dead.
3. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 59 years of age possessing good health and sound mind. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Assistant Traffic in DTC and getting a salary of Rs.46,863/-. It has been further stated that on the other hand, 7th Pay Commission was on the anvil and for the same, the deceased has to be benefited. It has been further stated that besides this, the deceased was also having agricultural income of about Rs. 2 Lakhs per annum.
4. It has been further stated that the deceased is survived by his wife, three sons and one daughter. It has been further stated that the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the deceased, the petitioners No.2, 4, 5 are the sons of the deceased and the petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of the deceased.
5. In total, the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) on account of compensation.
6. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioners, FIR No. 09/2016: P. S. Paschim Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
7. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
8. Reply has been jointly filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 wherein it has been stated that the respondent No.1 along with his accomplice namely Ms. Sneha were passing from the spot for the purposes of their education where the accident had occurred. It has been further stated that the respondent No.1 is the son of the respondent No.2. It has been further stated that the respondent No.1 and his friend Ms. Sneha were doing some course in journalism from Vivekanand Institute. It has been further stated that the respondent No.1 as well as his accomplice Ms. Sneha saw the accident. It has been further stated that the New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 5/19 accident was caused not by the motorcycle which was being driven by respondent No.1 but by some Maruti Wagon-R of White Colour. It has been further stated that the Maruti Wagon-R hit the deceased and fled away from the spot.
9. It has been further stated that the respondent No.1 and his friend wanted to help the injured and as such, they stopped by the injured. It has been further stated that in the meantime, one person namely Roop Narayan reached the spot and he disclosed the name of the injured as Sh. Jagdish Chander who was employed with DTC Depot, Peera Garhi, Delhi. It has been further stated that thereafter, the respondent No.1 along with his friend Ms. Sneha and Sh. Roop Narayan took the injured to the hospital. It has been further stated that on account of non availability of the document, the motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 was without any insurance on 05.01.2016. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
10. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 17.05.2016:-
1. Whether the deceased Jagdish Chander suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 05.1.2016 at about 5:40 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 of the vehicle No. PB-0814-2187 owned by respondent No.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/s is/are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
11. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined Smt. Anita Yadav, Senior Clerk, DTC Department as PW-1 and this witness has proved on record the salary slip of the deceased for the month of December 2015 and the attested copy of the Identity Card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2 New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 6/19 respectively. PW-1 has further stated that the deceased was working with DTC Department as an ATI.
12. PW-1 has further stated that as per the salary slip for the month of December 2015 as Ex. PW1/1, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.46,863/-. PW-1 has further stated that the net income of the deceased was Rs.46,798/-. PW- 1 has further stated that the deceased was to retire after the period of two months from the date of accident i.e. on 29.02.2016.
13. The petitioners have examined the petitioner No.2 Sh. Praveen Kumar as PW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A & Ex. PW2/B; the copy of Aadhar Card of his father as Ex. PW2/1(OSR); the copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1 as Ex. PW2/2(OSR); the election I Card of the petitioner No.4 as Ex.
PW2/3(OSR); the copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/4(OSR); the copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner as Ex. PW2/5; the copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.5 as Ex. PW2/6(OSR); the copy of the death certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW2/7 (OSR).
14. In the cross examination done by ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 1& 2, PW-2 has stated that his father Sh. Jagdish Chander was going to be retired from his employment from DTC on 29.02.2016. PW-2 has further stated that when he reached Balaji Action Hospital, he saw his father declared brought dead and upon reaching PS, he found that the respondent No.1 was confined to lock up and the offending vehicle was standing at Bus Depot Peera Garhi.
15. PW-2 has admitted it to be correct that all the benefits regarding his services including Provident Fund had been received by all the legal heirs of his father.
16. In their defence, the respondents have examined the respondent No.1 as R1W1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. R1W1/A on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the written New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 7/19 statement/reply. In para no. 10 of his affidavit, R1W1 states that the Maruti Car which hit the deceased was of Grey Colour.
17. In the cross examination, R1W1 has admitted it to be correct that an FIR bearing No. 9/16 PS Paschim Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against him and the same was still pending disposal. R1W1 has further stated that he has not lodged any complaint against the IO in the aforesaid case for his alleged false implication in the abovesaid case. R1W1 has further stated that he cannot tell the make and registration number of the Maruti car which hit the deceased. R1W1 further states that he cannot tell the make and registration number of the car in which the deceased was taken to Balaji Hospital but it was a Honda City Car. R1W1 admits it to be correct that the motor cycle was seized by the police in the abovesaid FIR.
18. The respondents have further examined Ms. Sneha as R1W2 and in her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. R1W2/A on record she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by respondents in the written statement/reply.
19. In the cross examination, R1W2 has admitted it to be correct that she has come to depose at the instance of the respondent No.1 as she has cordial relations with the respondent No.1. R1W2 has further stated that she cannot tell the make and registration number of the maruti Car as stated in para no.3 of her affidavit. R1W2 has further stated that she does not remember the make or registration number of the car, which was being driven by a lady as stated by her in para no.6 of her affidavit. R1W2 has admitted it to be correct that from the spot of the accident, neither she went to the hospital nor to the police station but she went to her home. R1W2 has stated that she did not lodge any complaint before any higher authority of the police against the alleged false implication of the respondent No.1.
20. The respondents have further examined Sh Kamal Kaushal, Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as RW-3. This witness has proved on record the certified copy of the statement of Sh. Roop New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 8/19 Narayan recorded on 02.11.2016 in the Court of Ld. MM Sh. Manoj Kumar as RW3/1.
21. In the cross examination, RW-3 has admitted it to be correct that as per the case file, there is a notice u/s 251 Cr. PC served upon respondent No.1 u/s 279/304A IPC and u/s 146/196 M.V. Act against the respondent No.2. RW3 has further stated that the case is still pending.
22. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo Devi has also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioner No.1 under MCTAP as well.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 123. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 140 & 166 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1
24. The petitioner No.2 has examined himself as PW-2 and he has well explained the mode and manner of accident. He has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in the petition. During his entire cross examination, nothing has come out so as to discredit his testimony.
25. In the written statement, the respondents have taken the defence that the accident in question was caused by some Maruti Car of White Colour. It has been further stated in the reply/written statement by the respondents that the respondent no.1, his friend Ms. Sneha and Sh. Roop Narain had taken the deceased to the hospital.
26. In the cross examination, the respondent No.1 who has been examined as R1W1 and Ms. Sneha who has been examined as R1W2 have New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 9/19 categorically stated that they do not remember the make and registration number of the maruti car which had allegedly hit the deceased and caused the accident. They are not even aware about the make and registration number of the car in which allegedly the deceased was taken to the hospital by the respondent no.1, Ms. Sneha and Sh. Roop Narain. In their evidence by way of affidavits, R1W1 and R1W2 clearly state that the offending vehicle was a Maruti Car of Steel Grey Colour but in the reply, the respondents have stated that the offending vehicle was a Maruti Car of White Colour. In the reply, the respondents have stated that Ms. Sneha was also one of the persons who had taken the deceased to the hospital but Ms. Sneha, in her cross examination clearly states that from the spot of the accident, she directly went to her home and she neither went to the hospital nor to the police station.
27. As such, there are vital contradictions in the stand of the respondents as contained in their reply and in their examinations and cross examinations. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the testimonies of the respondents cannot be relied upon at all.
28. The certified copy of the statement of Sh. Roop Narayan which was recorded before the Court of Ld. MM in the case pertaining to FIR No. 9/16, in the form of Ex. RW3/1 has also been placed on record who has denied the suggestion that the accident in question took place with the offending vehicle bearing No. PB- 08H-2187. But in the cross examination, the said witness has categorically admitted his signature on the arrest memo of the respondent No.1, the personal search memo and on the seizure memo etc. As such, to my mind, the abovesaid testimony of Sh. Roop Narayan cannot be trusted at all.
29. Furthermore, it has to be seen that mechanical inspection report of the offending motorcycle bearing No. PB-08H-2187 is thereon record which clearly states that the front side wheel, front margat and the headlight glass of the abovesaid motorcycle were broken. As such, to my mind, the respondents have utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 10/19 account of the offending motorcycle but on account of some Maruti Car.
30. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No. 09/2016 dated 05.01.2016 P. S. Paschim Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC has already been filed.
31. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Beum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
32. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE NO. 233. The petitioner No.2 has filed on record copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as Ex. PW2/A in which the date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 01.03.1956. The date of accident is 05.01.2016. PW-1 & PW-2 have categorically stated that the deceased was to retire on 29.02.2016. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is taken as 60 years approximately as on the date of accident.
34. As per the petition, the deceased was working Assistant Traffic Inspector in DTC and getting a salary of Rs.46,863/- per month. In order to prove their claim, the petitioners have examined Sh. Smt. Anita Yadav, Senior Clerk from DTC Department who proved on record the salary slip of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1 for the month of December, 2015. As per the said salary slip, the gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.46863/-. But PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that the deceased had to retired on 29.02.2016 i.e. after a New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 11/19 period of approximately 2 months from the date of the accident which is 05.01.2016. Though, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to show the quantum of the family pension but to my mind, in the case in hand, it would be reasonable, just and proper, if the monthly salary of the deceased is taken as 50% of the gross salary of the deceased as he had to retire after a period of 2 months from the date of the accident. Accordingly, the monthly salary of the deceased is taken as Rs.23,432/- per month.
35. The petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo Devi, the wife of the deceased has been examined on 15.05.2017 under MCTAP and she has categorically stated that all her three sons are earning their livelihood and they are privately employed. She has further stated that all her sons and daughter are married. She has further stated that her daughter is also happily married. Accordingly, only the petitioner No.1 has to be treated as the dependent upon the deceased.
36. As such, there was only one legal heir / dependent on the deceased at the time of accident. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08', the deceased might have been spending one- third of Rs. 23,432/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind only one dependent on the deceased. Therefore, after deducting one- third towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to Rs.15,621/- (after rounding off Rs. 15,621.33/- )=( Rs. 23,432/- less Rs. 7810.66).
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Praney Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 12/19 coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) 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 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid case law laid down, I hereby grant 15% future prospects on New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 13/19 the income of the deceased.
Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.17,964/- (after rounding off Rs. 17,964.15 = Rs. 15,621/- + Rs.2343.15 which is 15% of Rs. 15,621/-).
The appropriate multiplier applicable is '9' ( for the age group of 56 years to 60 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 19,40,112/- = (Rs. 17,964 x 12 x 9).
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. The aforesaid amounts are to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
39. In view of the abovesaid judgment, I hereby award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 20,10,112/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Twelve Only) =( Rs. 19,40,112/- + Rs. 70,000/-) in favour of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo Devi and against the respondents.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.3
40. I award Rs. 20,10,112/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Twelve Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 19.01.2016 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo Devi and against the respondents on New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 14/19 account of their liability being joint and several.
41. The court has examined the petitioner No.1 on 15.05.2017 and her statement has also been considered by this Tribunal. She has stated that she has to spend an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month in maintaining herself and her joint family consisting of her three married sons and their families.
42. This Tribunal is in receipt of the letter dated 08.11.2017 from Delhi State Legal Services Authority, which is annexed with the latest MCTAP as approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Para no. 28 of new MCTAP has held as under:-
"Para no. 28 The Claims Tribunal shall, depending upon the financial status and financial need of the claimant (s), release such amount as may be considered necessary and direct the remaining amount to be kept in fixed deposits in phased manner (for example, if a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- has been awarded to the claimant, Rs.50,000/- may be released immediately and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- may be kept in 10 fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/- each for a periods of six months, one year, one and half years, two years and so on till five years or one year, two years, three years and so on till ten years). The Claims Tribunal may also consider imposing following conditions with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the Claimant(s).
(ii) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant (s).
(iii) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, a passbook of the FDRs be given to the claimant (s) along with the photocopy of the FDR. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant(s).
(iv) No cheque book be issued to the claimant (s) without permission of the Court. However, a photo identity card be issued to the claimant (s) and the New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 15/19 withdrawal be permitted upon production of the identity card.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(vi) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in the Tribunal".
Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 20,10,112/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Twelve Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 2,10,112/- shall be released to the petitioner No.1 keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
The rest of the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- shall be kept in 36 equal FDR's for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each for a period of six month, one year, one and a half years, two years, two and a half years, three years and so on till 18 years with cumulative interest in the name of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajo Devi.
The abovesaid conditions as laid down in MCTAP shall be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in respect to the FDR's.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
43. Since the offending vehicle, was admittedly driven by respondent No.1 and owned by the respondent No.2 and since the offending vehicle was not insured, the respondents No.1 & 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to the petitioner No.1. The respondents No.1 & 2 are hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner No.1 New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 16/19 with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner No.1. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 28.02.2018.
A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioners free of cost.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR )
On 20th of January, 2018 P.O. MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (20.01.2018)
New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 17/19
FORM -IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident. : 05.01.2016
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Jagdish Chander
3. Age of the deceased : 60 years approximately
4. Occupation of the deceased :- Assistant Traffic Inspector in DTC
5. Income of the deceased : Income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 23,432/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt. Rajo Not Wife of the deceased
mentioned
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs. 23,432/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 15%
9. Less-Personal expenses 1/3 rd deduction has been done
of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.17,964/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.2,15,568/-
(Dx12) (Rs.17,964/- x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 9
13. Total loss of dependency Rs. 19,40,112/- (Rs.2,15,568/- x
(Dx12xE= F) 9)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 18/19
15. Compensation for loss of NIL
love and affection(H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/-
consortium(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.20,10,112/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs. 3,62,322.68(2 years and 1 date of award (M) day)
22. Total amount including Rs.23,72,434.68 interest (L + M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,10,112/-
24. Award amount kept in Rs.18,00,000/-
FDRs
25. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29)
26. Next date for compliance 28.02.2018 of the award. (Clause 31) (RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (20.01.2018) New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 19/19 New MACT Case No. 477543/16 20.01.2018 Present: None Award is passed separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 28.02.2018.
The petitioner No.1 is directed to open her bank account near the place of her residence and to place on record a copy thereof within 15 days from today. The bank officials are also directed to make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner No.1 to the effect that no cheque or debit card has been issued and if the same has been issued, the same shall stand cancelled in accordance new MCTAP formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 15.12.2017.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
(RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (20.01.2018) New MACT Case No. 477543/16 Page No. 20/19