Delhi District Court
Hansi Devi vs Bindeshwar Gupta on 19 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 476661/2016
CNR No.-DLWT01-000817-2016
1. Hansi Devi
W/o Late Sh. Satish kumar
2. Lalit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
3. Jyoti
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
All R/o House No. 738, Gullar Pana,
VPO Sankhol Bahadurgarh,
Jhajjhar, Haryana
..............Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Bindeshwar Gupta (Driver)
S/o Sh. Jai Govind
R/o S-1041, Mangolpuri,
New Delhi
2. Shyam Sunder Bharadwaj (Owner)
S/o Prem Nath Bharadwaj
R/o A-101-102, A Block, H. no. 51-111,
Jain Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
3. Maruti Insurance Agency Services
Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
4. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
4Th and 5th Floor, IFFCO Tower,
Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurgaon-122001
Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.1 of 36
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:32:59 +0530
................ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution : 20.11.2014
Date of reserving order/judgment : 19.08.2023
Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2023
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 11.05.2014
2. Date of filing of Form-I - Form-1 (FAR) was not filed First Accident Report (FAR) in the present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II Form-II was not filed in the to the victim(s) present matter
4. Date of receipt of Form-III Form-III was not filed in the from the Driver present matter
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV Form-IV was not filed in the from the Owner present matter
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Form-V (IAR) was not filed Interim Accident Report in the present matter (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Form VIA & VIB were not and Form-VIB from the filed in the present matter Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 20.11.2014 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes Officer of the Insurance Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.2 of 36 Digitally signed byHARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:08 +0530 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency 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 was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 19.08.2023
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 17.05.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not 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) 31.05.2023 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 All R/o House No. 738, Address of the claimant(s). Gullar Pana, VPO Sankhol Bahadurgarh, Jhajjhar, Haryana
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.3 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDERHARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:13 +0530 savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/their financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide claim of compensation on account of death of Sh. Satish Kumar in a road vehicular accident which took place on 11.05.2014 at about 6 AM at Near S.P.M College, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forward by petition is that on 11.05.2014 at about 6 AM, deceased Satish Kumar was waiting for bus at Bus Stop situated near S.P.M College, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi along with other people. In the meantime, one Gramin Seva bearing registration No. DL2W2105 came in rash manner, negligent manner and hit the deceased and other pedestrians. Due to same, deceased sustained grievious injuries. After the incident, deceased was shifted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh by PCR Van. He expired during treatment on 14.05.2014. The post mortem of deceased Satish Kumar was conducted at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Delhi vide post mortem report No. 429/2014 dated 14.05.2014. FIR No. 370/2014 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh against the respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Deceased Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.4 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:19 +0530
was working as Constable with Delhi Police and was getting a salary of Rs.38,579/- per month at the time of incident. All the petitioners were dependent upon deceased. The petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.82,44,220/- as compensation from the respondents.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed their WS/reply to the present petition/application. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents No.3 & 4 were arrayed as respondent only on 15.10.2019 after framing of issues.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01
4. In gist, the response of the respondent no.01/Driver as discernible from his reply/written statement is that this petition is abuse of process of law. Claimants have not come before this Tribunal with clean hands. The present DAR is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no accident took place either with vehicle in question or due to negligence of the respondent no.1. The vehicle of the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. The respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license at the time of incident. All other contents of petition were denied by respondent no.1. With these main contentions, respondent no.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition. RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02
5. No WS/reply was filed by the respondent no.02 despite many opportunities.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
6. In gist, the response of the respondent no.03/Maruti Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.5 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:33:25 +0530
Insurance Agency Services as discernible from its reply/written statement is that no cause of action has arisen against the respondent no.3. Petitioners have also not claimed any relief against the respondent No.3. The vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 was not insured with respondent no.3 at the time of incident. The respondent no.3 was only authorized to insure Maruti Suzuki make/manufactured vehicles. The vehicle in question is TATA Magic. Policy bearing No. MII 1212150008999 issued in the name of Shyam Sunder was not issued by respondent No.3/Maruti Insurance Agency Service Ltd. The respondent no.3 denied all other amounts of petition. With these main contentions, respondent no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.04
7. In gist, the response of the respondent no.04/IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited as discernible from its reply/written statement is that vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 was not insured with it at the time of incident. The policy bearing no. MII 1212150008999 purportedly issued in the name of Shyam Sunder is fake one. Maruti Insurance Agency Service Ltd was authorized by respondent No.4 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company to issue insurance policies in respect of vehicles manufactured by Maruti Suzuki Company only. The said agency was not authorized to issue insurance policy for TATA Magic Gramin Seva or other vehicles. With these contentions, respondent No.04 prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
ISSUES Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.6 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:31 +0530 8.1 After completion of pleadings, the scholarly
predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues on 27.02.2018: -
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Satish Kumar suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 11.05.2014 at about 6 am due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 driven by the respondent no.1 Sh. Bindeshwar Gupta and being owned by the respondent no.2 Shyam Sunder Bhardwaj? OPP.
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
8.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 9.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon photocopy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/B, photocopy of I. D. Card of deceased Ex.PW1/A, Mark B to F and G which have already been exhibited in the testimony of PW-2 in her evidence. PW1 was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsels for respondents which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
9.2 The petitioner side has also examined petitioner No.2 Lalit Kumar as PW-2 to establish their claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. He relied Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.7 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:33:36 +0530
upon copy of Office ID Card of deceased issued by Delhi Police Mark A, copy of salary slip of deceased Mark B, copy of FIR Mark C, copy of death certificate of deceased Mark D, copy of death summary of deceased Mark E, copy of PM report of deceased Mark F, copy of his aadhar Card Mark G, copy of death certificate of petitioner Anaro Devi Mark H in his evidence.
PW2 was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsels for respondents which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
9.3 The petitioner side has also examined petitioner No.3 Jyoti as PW-3 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/1 in her evidence. PW3 was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsels for respondents which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
9.4 Petitioner side has further examined Inspector Narender Kumar Sharma from the side of employer of deceased as PW-4 who has brought on record the last pay slip of deceased Constable Satish Kumar No. 3325DAP for the month of April, 2014 duly verified by ACP/DDO, 1st Bn. DAP, Delhi as Ex.PW4/1. PW4 was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsels for respondents which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
9.5. Petitioner side has further examined Sh. Ram Kumar, Record Keeper from RTO Burari, Delhi as PW-5 who has brought on record the permit record of vehicle bearing Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.8 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:41 +0530
registration No. DL2W2105 as Ex.PW5/1 in his evidence. PW-5 was examined and discharged.
9.6 Petitioner side further examined Sh. Tarsem Kumar, Public Health Inspector from the office of MCD, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi as PW-6 who has brought on record death certificate of deceased Satish Kumar as PW-6/1 in his evidence. PW-6 was examined and discharged.
9.7 Petitioner side further examined Sh. K. D. Sharma, Record Clerk from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital as PW-7 who has brought on record death certificate of Satish Kumar along with treatment papers, death summary and medical bill of deceased Satish Kumar as Ex.PW7/1 in his evidence. PW-7 was examined and discharged.
9.8 Petitioner side further examined Dr. Munish Wadhawan, HOD& Specilist Forensic Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, New Delhi as PW-8 who has brought on record Post Mortem Report of Satish Kumar as Ex.PW8/1 in his evidence. PW-8 was examined and discharged. 9.9 Petitioner side has also examined Sh. Yogender Singh, Ahlmad of the court of Sh. Anshul Mehta, Ld. MM-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW-9 who has brought on record the records of judicial case file of State vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & Ors. bearing FIR No. 370/2014 PS Punjabi Bagh u/s 279/337/304A/468/471 IPC as Ex.PW9/1 in his evidence. PW-9 was examined and discharged.
9.10 Petitioner side has further examined Sh. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Cashier from the office of RTO, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi as PW-10 who has brought on record certified Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.9 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:47 +0530
copies of the extracts of driving license bearing No. DL11 20040182099 and Badge Number P111400239 of Sh. Bindeshwar Gupta as Ex.PW10/1 in his evidence. PW-10 was examined and discharged.
9.11 Petitioner side has also examined Sh. Rohit, Junior Assistant from the office of RTO, Burari Taxi Unit, Burari, New Delhi as PW-11 who has brought on record the certified copies of particulars of vehicle bearing No. DL3W2105 and its permit details as Ex.PW11/1 in his evidence. PW-11 was examined and discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE 10.1 The respondent no.01 examined himself as R1W1. He in gist vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.R1W1/A has deposed that no accident took place either with the vehicle in question or due to any negligence on his part. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. R1W1 was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
10.2 The respondent no.03 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd examined its Manager as R3W1. He in gist vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.R3W1/A has deposed that no cause of action has arisen against the respondent no.3. Petitioners have also not claimed any relief against the respondent No.3. The vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 was not insured with respondent no.3 at the time of incident. The respondent no.3 was only authorized to issue insurance for Maruti Suzuki make/manufactured vehicles whereas the vehicle in question is TATA Magic. Policy bearing No. MII 1212150008999 valid for period of 22.01.2014 to 21.01.2015 issued in the name of Shyam Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.10 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:33:53 +0530
Sunder was not issued by respondent No.3/Maruti Insurance Agency Service Ltd. R3W1 was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
10.3 The respondent no.04 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. has examined Sh. Mohit Raj Nagar, its Chief Manager(Legal) as R4W1. He in gist vide his affidavit of evidence Ex.R4W1/A has deposed that vehicle bearing No. DL- 2W-2105 was not insured with respondent no.4 at the time of incident. Maruti Insurance agency Service Ltd was authorized by respondent no.4 to issue insurance policies in respect of vehicles manufactured by Maruti Suzuki Company only. R4W1 relied upon copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R4W1/1, postal receipt Ex.R4W1/2, copy of undelivered speed post envelope Ex.R4W1/3, copy of fake policy Ex.R4W1/4, copy of complaint Ex.R4W1/5 and copies of two letters dated 22.02.2018 Ex.R4W1/6 in his evidence. R4W1 was examined and discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 11.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01. The deceased was 45 years of age, was working as Constable with Delhi Police and was getting a salary of Rs.38,579/- per month at the time of incident. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s).
11.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.11 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:00 +0530
question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. No accident took place with the vehicle in question by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has been falsely impleaded in the present matter. With these contentions, respondent no.01 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
11.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 Maruti Insurance Agency are that no cause of action has arisen against the respondent no.3. The vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 was not insured with respondent no.3 at the time of incident. The respondent no.3 was only authorized to issue insurance policies for Maruti Suzuki make/manufactured vehicles. Policy bearing No. MII 1212150008999 was not issued by respondent No.3/Maruti Insurance Agency Service Ltd. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
11.4 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.04 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 was not insured with respondent no.4 at the time of incident. The policy bearing no. MII 1212150008999 issued in the name of Shyam Sunder is fake one. It was not issued by Maruti Insurance Agency Service Ltd. as it was authorized by respondent No.4 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company to issue insurance policies qua vehicles manufactured by Maruti Suzuki Company only. The said agency was not authorized to issue insurance policy of a TATA Magic Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.12 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:05 +0530
Gramin Seva/vehicle in question. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.
11.5 No arguments have been addressed by respondent no.2.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 12.1 (1) Whether the deceased Sh. Satish Kumar suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 11.05.2014 at about 6 am due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL2W2105 driven by the respondent no.1 Sh. Bindeshwar Gupta and being owned by the respondent no.2 Shyam Sunder Bhardwaj? OPP.
12.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.13 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:11 +0530 Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 12.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.14 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:17 +0530
Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
12.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:- .
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
12.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.15 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:34:22 +0530
"National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
12.7 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
12.8 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence, the petitioner side has examined PW-1 who has specifically deposed that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL2W2105 hit her husband. She has also specifically deposed that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. She promptly denied suggestion in Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.16 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:28 +0530
her cross-examination that no such accident was ever caused by respondent no.1. PW-2 has also exhibited the copy of FIR Mark C, copy of death certificate of deceased Mark D, copy of death summary Mark E, copy of PM report of deceased Mark F and copy of death certificate of petitioner Anaro Devi Mark H in his evidence. PW3 has also deposed on same lines. Though, it is correct that PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 have admitted in their cross- examination that they have not witnessed the incident but the petitioner side has brought the records of case file of State vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & Ors. bearing FIR No. 370/2014 PS Punjabi Bagh u/s 279/337/304A/468/471 IPC as Ex.PW9/1 in evidence of PW-9. Ex.PW9/1 also contains the statement of deceased Satish on which FIR in question was registered. He has stated in his said statement the place, time, manner of incident, registration number of the offending vehicle and the name of the respondent no.1 as driver of the offending vehicle which he disclosed at the time of incident. Said statement of deceased Satish certainly qualifies to be statement under Section 32(1) of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He has stated in his statement that incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he is accused in criminal case under Section 279 IPC etc. pending before Ld. Magistrate Court and the owner/respondent no.2 is also facing trial for offences punishable under Section 468/471 IPC before said Court. The factum that driver of vehicle in question/respondent no.1 was challaned under Section 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation also supports and affirms the case of the petitioner Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.17 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:34 +0530
side that incident happened with vehicle in question No. DL2W2105 and due to his rash and negligent driving of same by respondent no.1. In given circumstances, the case of respondent no.1 that incident has not happened with vehicle in question or that he was not driving the vehicle in question at the time of incident cannot be accepted.
12.9 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL2W2105 by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents.
Issue No.(ii) : - Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
13.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular death cases.
13.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.18 of 36 Digitally signed
HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:38 +0530 claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years.
Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.19 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:34:43 +0530
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
13.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.20 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.08.21
15:34:48 +0530
under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. 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 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.
13.4 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.21 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:34:54 +0530
Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above prepositions.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER 13.5 Age of the deceased is claimed 45 years at the time of incident/death vide petition. The date of incident is 11.05.2014. As per office ID of deceased Mark A issued by Delhi Police, the date of birth of the deceased is 25.10.1969. Hence, deceased was around 45 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell in age bracket of 41 to 45. Hence, the multiplier applicable to this case would be 14.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 13.6 No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner side to prove the educational qualification of deceased. DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME 13.7 It is claimed that deceased was working as Constable in Delhi Police and was getting a salary of Rs.38,579/- per month at the time of incident. The petitioner side examined Inspector Narender Kumar Sharma, Accountant, 1st Battalion, Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.22 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:00 +0530
NPL, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi as PW-4 who has proved on record the last payslip of deceased as Ex.PW4/1 on record. As per salary slip for the month of April, 2014 available on record, his basic pay was Rs.11490/-, Grade Pay was Rs.2800/-, HRA was Rs.4287/- and DA was Rs.14,290/-. After deduction of 10% income tax from the monthly salary of the deceased the amount comes out to be Rs. 29,580/- per month (after rounding off Rs. 29,580.3). ( Rs. 32867/- less Rs. 3286.7). As such, the salary of the deceased on the date of incident needs to be taken as Rs.29,580/-. Though, it has come on record that family of the deceased is receiving family pension, has received gratuity Rs.7,43,080/-, leave encashment Rs.2,85,800/- etc. and one son of the deceased has got job on compassionate ground, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of " Sebastiani Lakra & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr." Civil Appeal No(s). 10588-89 of 2018 has held that the said stated amounts are paid on account of services rendered by deceased to his employer. They are property of the deceased and are more in the nature of deferred wages. Those amounts are payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Those amounts could not be deducted as have not accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Hence, they are not deductible.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE 13.8 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors." decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.23 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:06 +0530
in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
13.9 The deceased was aged less than 50 years at the time of incident and had permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 30%. ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED MONTHLY INCOME 13.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as Rs.29,580/- per month would be applicable in this case and an addition of 30% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs.38,454/- (Rs.29,580/- + Rs.8874/- which is 30% of Rs.29,580/-).
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS 13.11 There is no dispute that the deceased was married, is survived by wife (petitioner no.01), son (petitioner no.02) and daughter (petitioner no.03). Petitioners no.02 & 03 are stated to be studying at the time of incident. Petitioner No.4 Smt. Anaro Devi has expired during the pendency of the present petition. So, the petitioner no.1 to 3 are only taken as dependents upon the deceased at the time of his death. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/3rd in this matter. Hence, 1/3rd would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.24 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.08.21
15:35:12 +0530
13.12 The monthly income of the deceased after
enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.38,454/-. A deduction of 1/3rd needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.25,636/-(after deducting 1/3rd of Rs.38,454/-). This product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.3,07,632/- (Rs.25,636/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY 13.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.43,06,848/- (Rs.3,07,632 x 14), hence, so awarded. COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE 13.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.16,500/- (15,000/- + 10% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 13.15 Since, claimants are wife and two children of deceased, hence, an amount of Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 10% enhancement) is awarded under this head. COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES 13.16 An amount of Rs.16,500/- (15,000/- + 10% enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS 13.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum of Rs.43,83,484/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Only) Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.25 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:18 +0530
(Rs.43,06,848/- + Rs.16,500/- + Rs.44,000/- + Rs.16,500/-) in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents according to discussion on apportionment of liability. R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
14. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.43,83,484/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum (including interim award, if any) from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 20.11.2014 (excluding interest w.e.f. 15.12.2021 to 15.11.2022) till the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of the petitioner(s) and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several as per orders of apportionment of liability.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY 15.1 In this matter, one copy of insurance policy bearing No. MII 1212150008999 was collected by IO at the time of investigation. The same was found to be fake and consequently, the owner/respondent no.2 was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 467/468 IPC by the investigating agency. The said insurance policy is purportedly issued by respondent no.3 on behalf of respondent no.4 as being its authorized agent. The respondent no.3 and 4 have taken stand since inception that said policy is fake one. The respondent no.3 never issued policies qua vehicles other than make Maruti Suzuki Company Ltd. whereas the vehicle in question purportedly insured vide said policy is a TATA Magic. It has come on record that the owner/respondent no.2 is facing trial for offences Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.26 of 36 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:24 +0530
punishable under Section 468/471 IPC before Ld. MM Court. Same leaves no doubt that said purported policy was found fake by police during investigation. It was argued by the petitioner side that the respondent No.4 has not taken concrete steps against the alleged persons who have provided fake insurance policy, therefore, the respondent no.4 be asked to indemnify on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2. The petitioner side has relied upon judgment in matter of "Iffco Tokio General Inurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Naresh & Ors." to buttress their point. This tribunal has considered the totality of circumstances of the present matter and the citation relied upon by the petitioner side in support of their contentions. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner side was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a matter where the police has not challaned the owner for carrying fake policy. In the present matter, police has challaned the owner/respondent no.2 for carrying a fake policy. Hence, ratio of judgment relied upon by the petitioner side is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
15.2 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi recently in matter of "Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamlesh Jha & Ors." 2023 DHC 3467 in para No. 13 has held as under:-
"13. Given the finding of the Ld. Tribunal that the cover note was fake and thus, the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant-Insurance company at the time of the accident, coupled with the settled legal position as stated above, the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the appellant-Insurance company deserves to be Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.27 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2023.08.21
15:35:30 +0530
exonerated in toto and no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company."
15.3 In view of above discussions, the respondent No.4 Insurance Company could not be asked to indemnify respondent no.1 & 2 as insurer in this matter. In this age of computerization, preparation of fake electronic documents is very easy. A insurance company cannot be expected to run after each and every scurplus person who has prepared such fake document. It has taken sufficient steps in the form of making complaint to police and sending letter to R.T.O. qua fake policy in question. Hence, the respondent no. 3 & 4 cannot be asked in any manner to indemnify respondent no.1 & 2 in this matter. So, only respondent no.1 & 2 are held jointly and severely liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
15.4 Respondent no.1 & 2 are hereby directed to deposit the whole of award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, 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 intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP) Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.28 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:35 +0530 16.1 The applicant(s)/petitioner(s) was/were examined
under MCTAP on 31.05.2023 and his/her/their statement(s) considered.
16.2 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors." has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 16.3 Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the above-said guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.43,83,484/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/claimant(s) as stated herein above.
16.4 Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi is directed to release Rs.43,83,484/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Only) along-with interest in MACT Account bearing No. 3363000101251810 with Punjab Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.29 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:40 +0530
National Bank, Bahadurgarh, Delhi Road Branch of petitioner no.1 St. Hansi as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
16.5 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse share of award amount of petitioner No.2 Lalit Kumar and petitioner No.3 Jyoti to be disclosed by the petitioner side vide separate application within 15 days from today as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
16.6 The compensation to the petitioner(s) shall be distributed/disbursed as follows : -
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs No. petitioner DOB/ with Amount in award to be in FDRs in with cumulative / Year of injured/ Rupees released in Rupees interest in claimant birth deceased Rupees Rupees
1. Hansi 15.08.19 Wife 35,00,000 Rs.5,00,000/- 30,00,000/- + 30,00,000/- + 70 1/3 rd 1/3 rd interest interest accumulated accumulated shall be kept in the form of equal monthly FDRs of Rs.20,000/- for the period of 150 months + months which comes out of division of interest accumulated by Rs.20,000/-.
The remainder, if any to be added in the last FDR. The FDRs shall be numbered 1st to last. The amount of FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.30 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:35:46 +0530
shall be released
to petitioner in
petitioner's
account on
monthly basis in
sequence of 1st
to last as per
above order.
2. Lalit 24.09.19 Son 4,41,742 Rs.1,41,742 Rs.3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- +
Kumar 94 + 1/3 rd 1/3rd interest
interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of
equal monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/- for
the period of 30
months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
The remainder,
if any to be
added in the last
FDR. The
FDRs shall be
numbered 1st to
last. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be released
to petitioner in
petitioner's
account on
monthly basis in
sequence of 1st
to last as per
above order.
3. Jyoti 01.11.19 Daughte 4,41,742 Rs.1,41,742 Rs.3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- +
93 r + 1/3 rd 1/3rd interest
interest accumulated
accumulated shall be kept in
the form of
equal monthly
FDRs of
Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.31 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:35:50 +0530
Rs.10,000/- for
the period of 30
months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
The remainder,
if any to be
added in the last
FDR. The
FDRs shall be
numbered 1st to
last. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be released
to petitioner in
petitioner's
account on
monthly basis in
sequence of 1st
to last as per
above order.
TOTAL Rs.43,83,484/-
16.7 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits : -
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.32 of 36 Digitally signed
HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:35:56 +0530 place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) 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 claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
16.8 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.", Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.33 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:36:01 +0530
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17. The respondent no.1 & 2 shall deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. In case, the award amount is deposited by respondent no.1 & 2 within 45 days, Nazir of this Tribunal shall make a report upon this award and shall also make requisite entry in the required register. In case, the award amount is not so deposited within 45 days, Nazir of this Tribunal shall put up a report after 45 days for further needful proceedings.
18. 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).
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open Court SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:36:07 +0530 today i.e. 19.08.2023.
(HARVINDER SINGH) ADJ-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/19.08.2023 Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.34 of 36FORM -XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 11.05.2014
2. Name of the deceased : Satish
3. Age of the deceased : 45 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Government Servant
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.29,580/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Hansi 15.08.1970 Wife
(ii) Lalit Kumar 24.09.1994 Son
(iii) Jyoti 01.11.1993 Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.29,580/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 30%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3rd deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.25,636/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.3,07,632/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 14
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.43,06,848/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.44,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.35 of 36 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2023.08.21 15:36:13 +0530 17. Compensation for loss of Rs.16,500/- estate(J) 18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.16,500/- expenses(K) 19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.43,83,484/- (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) 20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum AWARDED 21. Interest amount up to the Rs.24,02,757.62 date of award (M) (w.e.f. 20.11.2014 to 19.08.2023 excluding interest w.e.f. 31.03.2021 to 03.12.2021) which comes to 7 years 9 months and 29 days 22. Total amount including Rs.67,86,241.62 interest (L + M) (Rs.43,83,484/- + Rs.24,02,757.62) 23. Award amount released Rs.7,83,484/- 24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.36,00,000/- along with accumulated interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant (s).
26. Next date for compliance of 07.10.2023 the award.
Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2023.08.21
15:36:20 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
PO: MACT-01(West),
THC/Delhi/19.08.2023
Hansi Devi & Ors. vs. Bindeshwar Gupta & ors.
[MACT No.476661/2016] Page No.36 of 36