Delhi District Court
Surender Singh Lrs Of Deceased ... vs Ved Prakash (Reliance Gen. _) on 24 April, 2024
DLCT010019882019
Presented on : 12-02-2019
Registered on : 13-02-2019
Decided on : 24-04-2024
Duration : 05 Years 02 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR.PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF CASE/ MACT No. 115/19
(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of
deceased Govind):
MUNESH DEVI
(Mother of deceased Govind)
W/o Late Sh. Surender Singh,
R/o Village & PO Baghanki,
P.S. Manesar, Distt. Gurugram,
Haryana. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. VED PRAKASH
S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh
R/o H.No. 10, Village Nakhrola,
Distt.Gurugram, Haryana.
Also at:- Shop No. 16,
C/o Pawan Goods Freight Carriers,
Khanna Market, Delhi-110006. (Driver-cum-Owner).
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors
MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors
MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors
MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 1/59
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2024.04.25
15:08:19
+0530
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
At: 60, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-III,
New Delhi.
Presently at : 1st Floor, A-12,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi (Insurer). .......Respondents
AND DLCT010032872019 Presented on : 11-03-2019 Registered on : 12-03-2019 Decided on : 24-04-2024 Duration : 05 Years 01 month IN THE MATTER OF CASE/ MACT No. 192/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar) :
1. RAM NIWAS S/o Late Bhawani @ Bhawani Mal
2. SUMITRA W/o Sh. Ram Niwas Both R/o Village-Dhani Lal Singh, Bhora Kalan, Near Bilaspur (146), Gurgaon, Haryana-122413. .......Petitioners VERSUS
1. VED PRAKASH MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 2/59 S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H.No. 10, Village Nakhrola, Distt. Gurugram, Haryana.
Also at:-
Shop No.16, C/o Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Khanna Market, Delhi-110006. (Driver-cum-Owner).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
At: 60, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-III, New Delhi.
Presently at : 1st Floor, A-12, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Insurer). .......Respondents AND DLCT010032822019 Presented on : 11-03-2019 Registered on : 12-03-2019 Decided on : 24-04-2024 Duration : 05 Years 01 month IN THE MATTER OF CASE/ MACT No. 193/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir):
1. SURJEET S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh R/o Ward No. 13, Pahad Colony, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-122103.
2. SUNITA W/o Sh. Satyavir MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 3/59 R/o H.No.32, Banban, Post-Jhiwana, Tehsil-Tizara, Distt Alwar, Rajasthan-301707.
3. RAJBIR S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh R/o Ward No. 13, Pahad Colony, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-122103.
4. DHARMPAL S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh R/o Ward No. 13, Pahad Colony, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-122103.
5. MEMWATI W/o Sh. Ramawatar R/o Banban, Post-Jhiwana, Tehsil-Tizara, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan-301707. .......Petitioners VERSUS
1. VED PRAKASH S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H.No. 10, Village Nakhrola, Distt.Gurugram, Haryana.
Also at:
Shop No.16, C/o Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Khanna Market, Delhi-110006. (Driver-cum-Owner).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
At: 60, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-III, MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 4/59 New Delhi.
Presently at : 1st Floor, A-12, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Insurer). .......Respondents AND DLCT010071842019 Presented on : 24-05-2019 Registered on : 25-05-2019 Decided on : 24-04-2024 Duration : 04 Years 11 Months IN THE MATTER OF CASE/ MACT No. 393/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh):
1. PATIRAM S/o Late Sh. Hari Vilas
2. SHARDA DEVI W/o Sh. Pati Ram Both R/o Village-Nakhatpura, Roopdhani, P.S.Jaithara, Distt. Etah, Uttar Pradesh-207248. .......Petitioners VERSUS
1. VED PRAKASH S/o Sh. Mohlad Singh R/o H.No. 10, Village Nakhrola, Distt.Gurugram, Haryana.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 5/59 Also at:
Shop No.16, C/o Pawan Goods Freight Carriers, Khanna Market, Delhi-110006. (Driver-cum-Owner).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
At: 60, Okhla Ind. Area, Phase-III, New Delhi.
Presently at : 1st Floor, A-12, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Insurer). .......Respondents The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 01/08/2010
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed N.A. Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 6/59 Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the N.A. offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 24/04/2024
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 18/07/2023 was/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 to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the In MACT Claimant(s). No. 115/19:
Village & PO Baghanki, P.S.Manesar, Distt.
Gurugram, Haryana.
In MACT No. 192/19:
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 7/59 Village-Dhani Lal Singh, Bhora Kalan, Near Bilaspur (146), Gurgaon, Haryana-
122413.
In MACT No. 193/19:
Ward No. 13, Pahad Colony, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana-
122103.
In MACT
No. 393/19:
Village-
Nakhatpura,Roopdh
ani, P.S. Jaithara,
Distt. Etah,
Uttar Pradesh-
207248.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were N.A. examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain their financial condition?
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION
1. These four petitions bearing MACT No. 115/19, 192/19, 193/19 and 393/19 were filed U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act on 13/02/2019, 12/03/2019, 12/03/2019 & 25/05/2019 respectively seeking MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 8/59 compensation in respect of the death of one Sh. Govind S/o Sh. Surender Singh (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), second in respect of the death of Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Niwas (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), third in respect of the death of one Sh. Dharambir S/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and fourth in respect of the death of Sh. Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh S/o Sh.Patiram (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), respectively due to a motor vehicular accident dated 01/08/2010. As per petition, on 01/08/2010 the deceased and his other friends and neighbours loaded their respective goods in Truck bearing registration no. HR-55-E-2307 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") to be transported to Gangotri, Uttrakhand from Village Baghanki, Manesar,Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana and the goods included bags of Flour, Rice, Soozi, Besan, Sugar, Vegetables, Pulses and Tins of Ghee and Vegetable Oil besides Utensils etc. It is further stated that the purpose of transporting the said goods to Gangotri was to hold langar jointly by all the said persons for the pilgrims who visits holy Gangotri and to distribute ambrosia amongst the pilgrims. It is further stated that the truck was hired by the deceased persons and the other villagers for the purpose of transporting the Goods from Gurgaon to Gangotri and after loading the said Goods in the truck, the deceased persons and other villagers boarded the truck being the owners of the goods. It is further stated that the driver of the said Truck was driving it at very fast speed, rashly and negligently and the deceased and the other persons who were travelling in the said truck being the owner of the goods requested the driver to drive moderately but he did not pay any heed and MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 9/59 continued to drive recklessly and at the relevant time and date, truck reached at Durga Mandir, Dabrani, Uttarkashi, Uttrakhand, the driver lost control over the wheels and the said truck along with the occupants and the goods fell into the ditch and the deceased and other occupants of the truck sustained serious/ grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who drove the vehicle at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without caring for the rules of traffic and the death of the deceased has resulted and arisen out of the use of vehicle. A DD No. 11 dated 02/08/2010, PS Maneri, Uttrakashi, Uttrakhand, U/s 279/304 IPC, was registered in respect of the above accident. R-1 is the driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
1.1 It is stated that the deceased Govind was 20 years of age and was self employed and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As per petition, the petitioners were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. However, during proceedings, Sh. Surender Singh (father of deceased) has passed away on 19.03.2019. Petitioner seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the above said accident.
1.2 It is stated that the deceased Pramod Kumar was 20 years of age and was a Cleaner and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. As per petition, MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 10/59 the petitioners were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the above said accident.
1.3 It is stated that the deceased Dharambir was 23 years of age and was driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the above said accident.
1.4 It is stated that the deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh was 21 years of age and was labourer Sweetmaker (Halwai) and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioners seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the above said accident.
Pleading in MACT No. 115/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind):
2. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he declined the contents of the petition. It is claimed that the offending vehicle was not involved in the present accident. On merits, the claim of the petitioners has been declined by R-1. He further claimed that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-2/ insurance company in his favour and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-2/ Insurance Company only.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 11/59
3. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it is admitted that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
Pleading in MACT No. 192/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar):
4. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he declined the contents of the petition. It is claimed that the offending vehicle was not involved in the present accident. On merits, the claim of the petitioners has been declined by R-1. He further claimed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-2/ insurance company in his favour and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-2/ Insurance Company only.
5. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
Pleading in MACT No. 193/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir):
6. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he declined the contents of the petition. It is claimed that the offending vehicle was not MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 12/59 involved in the present accident. On merits, the claim of the petitioners has been declined by R-1. He further claimed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-2/ insurance company in his favour and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-2/ Insurance Company only.
7. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
Pleading in MACT No. 393/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh) :
8. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he declined the contents of the petition. It is claimed that the offending vehicle was not involved in the present accident. On merits, the claim of the petitioners has been declined by R-1. He further claimed that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-2/ insurance company in his favour and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-2/ Insurance Company only.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 13/59
9. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
ISSUES in MACT No. 115/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind):
10. Vide order dated 06/09/2019 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Rohtash suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-
2307 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
10.1 From the perusal of records reveals that inadvertently, the name of the deceased has wrongly been mentioned in the Issue No. 1 and stands framed as follows:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh.Govind suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-
2307 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 14/59 insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
ISSUES in MACT No. 192/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar):
11. Vide order dated 06/09/2019 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh.Pramod Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.ISSUES in MACT No. 193/19
(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir):
12. Vide order dated 06/09/2019 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh.Dharambir suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 15/59 negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.ISSUES in MACT No. 393/19
(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh):
13. Vide order dated 06/09/2019, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
14. All the four matters bearing were consolidated vide order dated 23/02/2023 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal and the matter for MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 16/59 Grant of Compensation in respect of the fatal injuries sustained by decease d Govind i.e. MACT No. 115/19 was treated as a ''Lead Case.''.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 115/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind):
15. In support of their contentions, the petitioner examined herself who is mother of the deceased as PW-1.
PW-1 deposed, vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, that the deceased who is her son lost his life on 01/08/2010 due to the motor vehicular accident dated 01/08/2010 as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. She further stated that at the relevant time, the deceased was aged about 20 years and was self employed and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She further deposed that the deceased is survived by his parents, however, father of the deceased died on 19.03.2019. She has relied upon following documents in support of her claim :-
"Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of DD 7 dated 01.08.2010;
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) is copy of DD 11 dated 02.08.2010;
Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) is copy of MLC & death certificate;
Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is copy of 12th Class Certificate;
Mark A is copy of insurance policy;
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) (Colly) is copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card;
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 17/59 Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) is copy of Bank Passbook;
Mark B is copy of judgment dated 07.10.2017;
Mark C (Colly) is copy of orders dated 27.07.2018 & 25.07.19;
Mark D (Colly) is copy of orders dated 25.10.2018 & 27.09.2019;
Ex.PW1/13 (OSR) is copy of death certificate of her husband;
Ex.PW1/14 (OSR) is copy of evidence of Lallan Jha;
Ex.PW1/14 (OSR) is copy of Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of her husband;
She was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she is not an eye witness. She further deposed that she did not file any employment document of her deceased son and also any income proof. She denied the suggestion that she did not file any employment as well as income proof as her deceased son was unemployed. She further denied the suggestion that she is not entitled for any compensation. She further denied the suggestion that her son was a gratuitous passenger.
15.1 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
15.2 No evidence was led in defence by either of the respondents.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 18/59 EVIDENCE in MACT No. 192/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar):
16. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Ram Niwas, father of the deceased as PW-1.
PW-1 deposed, vide his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, that the deceased who is his son lost his life on 01/08/2010 due to the motor vehicular accident dated 01/08/2010 as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. He further deposed that the deceased is survived by his parents. He has relied upon following documents in support of his claim:-
"Ex. PW1/3 is copy of death certificate of his son;
Ex.PW1/5 (Colly) (OSR) are copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card;
Ex.PW1/6 is copy of bank passbook;
Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW-1/2, Ex. PW-1/4, Ex. PW-1/8, Ex.PW- 1/9, Ex. PW-1/10, Ex. PW-1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 already exhibited in MACT No. 115/19.
He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is not an eye witness. He deposed that there were 24 persons travelling in the offending vehicle. He deposed that he did not know how many person were travelling in the cabin of offending vehicle as he is not aware about anything. He deposed that he has not filed any document of the employment of his MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 19/59 deceased son. He denied the suggestion that his deceased son was unemployed, therefore, he did not file any document. He denied the suggestion that his deceased son was not earning Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore, he has not filed any document of the same. He deposed that he has received the compensation against the death of his son. He further denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to receive the compensation from the present Court as he has received compensation from workmen compensation forum. He further denied the suggestion that his deceased son was a gratuitous passenger.
16.1 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
16.2 No evidence was led in defence by either of the respondents.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 193/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir) :
17. Evidence was led in the lead case.
EVIDENCE in MACT No. 393/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh ) :
18. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Patiram, father of the deceased as PW-1.
PW-1 deposed, vide his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, that the deceased MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 20/59 who is his son lost his life on 01/08/2010 due to the motor vehicular accident dated 01/08/2010 as mentioned in para no. 1 of this award. He further deposed that the deceased is survived by his parents. He has relied upon following documents in support of his claim:-
"Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of DD no.7;
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) is copy of DD No. 11;
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) (Colly) is copy of death certificate and MLC;
Mark A is a copy of insurance policy;
Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) (Colly) is copy of his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card;
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) (Colly) is copy of bank passbook;
Copy of judgment dated 07/10/2017, order dated 27/07/2018, order dated 25/07/2019, order dated 27/09/2019 which are already marked in the Lead case bearing MACT No. 115/19;
Copy of evidence of Sh. Lallan Jha is already exhibited in lead case bearing MACT No. 115/19.'' He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has four children(son) and two daughters. He deposed that he is a labourer as well as agriculturer. He deposed that he is not an eye witness. He deposed that MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 21/59 there were 24 persons were sitting in the cabin of the truck. He deposed that he has not filed any proof regarding the hiring of truck. He deposed that he has not filed any proof regarding the ownership of goods. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to sitting of deceased and other person in the cabin. He deposed that he is dependent upon the deceased and other son also. He deposed that he has not filed any proof regarding income of Rs.15,000/- by his son. He denied the suggestion that he has not filed income proof as his son was unemployed. He affirmed that his son was gratuitous passenger but he was sitting in the cabin. He denied the suggestion that insurance is not liable as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.
18.1 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
18.2 No evidence was led in defence by either of the respondents.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
19. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
20. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE NO. 115/19
Whether the deceased Sh.Govind suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 22/59 on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-23 07 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE NO. 192/19
Whether the deceased Sh.Pramod Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that to ok place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2?
OPP.
ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE NO. 193/19Whether the deceased Sh. Dharambir suffered fatal injuries in an accident that to ok place on 01.08.2018 at about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE NO. 393/19Whether the deceased Sh. Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 01.08.2018 a t about 05.00 AM involving Truck bearing registration No. HR-55E-2307 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 23/59 Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
21. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
22. In order to decide the present issue, we may look into the oral testimonies of petitioners who examined themselves as PW-1 in MACT No. 115/19, 192/19 & 393/19 respectively. All the said witnesses deposed that at the relevant date, time and place, the deceased persons and other friends and neighbours loaded their respective goods in offending vehicle MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 24/59 to be transported to Gangotri, Uttrakhand from Village Baghanki, Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana and the goods included bags of Flour, Rice, Soozi, Besan, Sugar, Vegetables, Pluses and Tins of Ghee and Vegetable Oil besides Utensils etc. It is further stated that the purpose of transporting the said goods go Gangotri was to hold langar jointly by all the said persons for the pilgrims who visits holy Gangotri and to distribute ambrosia amongst the pilgrims. It is further stated that the truck was hired by the deceased and the other villages for the purpose of transporting the Goods from Gurgaon to Gangotri and after loading the said Goods in the truck, the deceased and other villagers boarded the truck being the owners of the goods. It is further stated that the driver of the said Truck was driving it at very fast speed, rashly and negligently and the deceased and the other persons who were travelling in the said truck being the owner of the goos requested the driver to drive moderately but he did not pay any heed and continued to drive recklessly and on 01/08/2010 at about 05.00 A.M, truck reached at Durga Mandir, Dabrani, Uttarkashi, Uttrakhand, the driver lost control over the wheels and the said truck along with the occupants and the goods fell into a ditch and the deceased and other occupants of the truck sustained serious/ grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who drove the vehicle at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without caring for the rules of traffic and the death of the deceased has resulted and arisen out of the use of vehicle. In totality, the testimonies of PWs-1 seem reliable and worth acting upon. Since, PWs-1 have categorically stated that MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 25/59 the deceased persons died due to rash and negligent driving of R-1.
23. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
24. This Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which he lost control over the wheels and the offending vehicle along with the occupants and the goods fell into a ditch. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased persons, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
25. In view of the Postmortem Report/ MLCs placed on the judicial files by the respective petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased persons in the above accident.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 26/59
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased persons died on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. All these issues no. 1 are thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners in all the cases.
ISSUE NO. 2 IN ALL THE FOUR CASES "Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
27. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased persons, therefore, the petitioners in all the cases are entitled to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation shall be decided separately for all the sets of petitioners in the following paragraphs:-
COMPENSATION IN MACT No.115/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind):
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
28. In this regard, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 who was the mother of deceased. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 20 years old and was self employed and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, there is no material available on record MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 27/59 which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the employment and monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to a Matriculate Person in Haryana at the time of accident i.e. 01/08/2010 were Rs.4,604/- per month.
29. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 20 years and they have placed on record the copy of matriculate certificate of the deceased, as per which the date of birth of the deceased was 07/09/1990. The date of accident is 01/08/2010. Going by the said records, the age of deceased would be around 19 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioner on account of death of the deceased Govind.
30. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that the deceased was survived only by his parent. Petitioner Smt. Munesh Devi (mother of the deceased) is considered to be dependent upon the deceased as petitioner Surender Singh has passed away on MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 28/59 19.03.2019.
31. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 19 years at the time of accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
32. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.6,96,125/- (rounded off) (Rs.4,604/ X 140/100 X 1/2 X 12 X 18). This amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
33. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioner is also held entitled to amounts of Rs.20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioner is also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium":-
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 29/59 Filial Consortium : Rs.44,000/-
33.1 Hence, the petitioner is awarded a total sum of Rs.84,000/-
(Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs.44,000/-) under this head.
COMPENSATION IN MACT No.192/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar):
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
34. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Ram Niwas, as PW-1 who was the father of deceased. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 20 years old and was a Cleaner and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an Unskilled Person in Haryana at the time of accident i.e. 01/08/2010 were Rs.4,214/- per month.
35. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and they have placed on record the copy of DL of deceased, as per which the date of birth of deceased was 09/03/1990. The date of accident is 01/08/2010. Going by the said records, the age of deceased would be around 20 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 30/59 of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased Pramod Kumar.
36. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that the deceased was survived only by his parent. However, only Petitioner No. 2 (mother of the deceased) is considered to be dependent upon the deceased.
37. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 20 years at the time of accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioner is also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
38. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.6,37,157/-(rounded off) (Rs.4,214/- X 140/100 X 1/2 X 12 X 18). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 31/59
39. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium": -
Filial Consortium : Rs. 44,000/- to each petitioner.
39.1 Hence, the petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/-
and petitioner no. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs.44,000/-) under this head.
40. The plea was raised by Insurance company that petitioner has received compensation before Commissioner under Employee Compensation Act 1923 and the said compensation was given under Employees Compensation Act. Since it is a motor vehicle accident and petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation as per M.V. Act scheme, therefore, being a special Act, the petitioner is entitled to have compensation, however, the amount so received from the different Tribunal may be deducted from the final compensation.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 32/59 COMPENSATION IN MACT No.193/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir):
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
41. These all are connected cases pertaining to same accident. In lead case, Smt. Munesh Devi was examined. In her defence, it is evidence that deceased Dharambir has also suffered fatal injuries which is also not disputed. However, coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that deceased was survived only by his brothers and sisters. Hence, there is no loss of dependency on account of death of deceased Dharambir. Accordingly, nothing is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
42. In view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium":-
Consortium : Rs. 44,000/- to each petitioner 42.1 Hence, the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/-
each under this head.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 33/59 COMPENSATION IN MACT No. 393/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh):
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
43. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Patiram as PW-1 who was the father of deceased. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 21 years old and was Sweetmaker/ Halwai and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, there is no material available on record which could corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the employment and monthly earnings of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an Un-Skilled Person in Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident i.e. 01/08/2010 were Rs.4,558/- per month.
44. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. Petitioners have filed election I-Card, as per which, year of birth of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh is 1988. The date of accident is 01/08/2010. Going by the said records, the age of deceased would be around 21 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 34/59 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
45. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that the deceased was survived only by his parents, However, Petitioner No. 2 (mother of deceased) shall be treated as dependent upon the deceased.
46. Irrespective of this, one half of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 21 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioner is also held entitled to an addition of 25% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
47. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.6,89,170/-(rounded off) (Rs.4,558/- X 140/100 X 1/2 X12 X 18). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(iii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 35/59
48. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs.20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium":-
Filial Consortium : Rs. 44,000/- to each petitioner.
48.1 Hence, the petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/-
and petitioner no. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs.84,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs.44,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
49. The petitioner (in Case No. 115/19 for Grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.7,80,125/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five Only) (Rs.6,96,125/- + Rs.84,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 13/02/2019. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore, no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 36/59
50. The petitioners (in Case No. 192/19 For Grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Pramod Kumar) are thus awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,157/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty Seven Only) (Rs.6,37,157/- + Rs.1,28,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12/03/2019. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable. Further, amount received under Employee Compensation Act i.e. Rs.8,17,579/- is hereby deducted and petitioners are entitled for remaining amount i.e. Rs.2,58,743/-.
51. The petitioners (in Case No. 193/19 For Grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir) are thus awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- each along with interest @ 8% per a nnum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12/03/2019. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
52. The petitioners (in Case No. 393/19 For Grant of Compensa tion in respect of the death of deceased Rajesh @ Rakesh @ Naresh) a re thus awarded a sum of Rs.8,17,170/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Only) (Rs.6,89,170/- + Rs.1,28,000/-) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 25/05/2019. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 37/59 RELEASE IN MACT No. 115/19 (For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Govind)
53. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording her statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
53.1 Out of the awarded amount, petitioner Munesh Devi is awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.1,02,577/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
RELEASE IN MACT No. 192/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 38/59 deceased Pramod Kumar)
54. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
54.1 The awarded amount of Rs.61,894/-(including interest) be released in the saving/MACT Claims Bank Account of petitioner no. 1 Ram Niwas as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 1.
54.2 The awarded amount of Rs.1,96,849/-(including interest) be released in the saving/MACT Claims Bank Account of petitioner no. 2 Sumitra as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 2.
RELEASE IN MACT No. 193/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharambir)
55. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 39/59 55.1 The awarded amount of Rs.61,894/- each (including interest) be released in the saving/MACT Claims Bank Account of petitioners as and when they furnish the details of their bank account which is near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioners.
RELEASE IN MACT No. 393/19(For grant of Compensation in respect of the death of deceased Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh)
56. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
56.1 The awarded amount of Rs.61,307/-(including interest) be released in the saving/MACT Claims Bank Account of petitioner no. 1 Pati Ram as and when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 1.
56.2 Out of the awarded amount, petitioner no. 2 Sharda Devi is awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 40/59 Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.77,284/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Four only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 2.
LIABILITY
57. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver-cum-owner is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-2 at the time of accident, therefore, R-2/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-1 in respect of above liability. As such R-2/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 41/59 terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
58. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
59. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e- mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 42/59
60. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 25.05.2024.
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA On this 24.04.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 43/59 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 01/08/2010
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Govind
3. Age of the deceased : 20 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Self Employed
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a Matriculate Person prevailing in Haryana at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
Surender Singh
(i) (now deceased) 60 Years Father of the
deceased
(ii) Munesh Devi 55 Years Wife of the
deceased
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 44/59 Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.4,604/- per month
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of One Half deduction has been the deceased(C) done
10. Monthly loss of Rs.3,222.80/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.38,673.60/-
(Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '18'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.6,96,125/-
(Dx12xE= F) MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 45/59
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.44,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs.20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.7,80,125/-
COMPENSATION(F+G+
H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.3,22,452/-(rounded off)
date of award(M)
22.
Total amount including Rs.11,02,577/-
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 46/59 interest(L + M)
23. Rs.1,02,577/-
Award amount released
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,00,000/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance of 25/05/2024 the award FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 01/08/2021
2. Name of the deceased : Pramod Kumar MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 47/59
3. Age of the deceased : 20 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Cleaner
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a Unskilled Person prevailing in Haryana at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Ram Niwas 55 Years Father of the
deceased
Sumitra
(2) 53 years Mother of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs. 4,214/- per month
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 48/59
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of One half deduction has been the deceased(C) done
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 2,949.80/-
dependency[(A+B)-=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.35,397.60 (rounded off) (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) '18'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.6,37,157/-(rounded off) (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of P1: Rs. 44,000/-
consortium(H) P2: Rs. 44,000/-
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I) MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 49/59
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs. 20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.7,65,157/-
COMPENSATION(F+G+H
+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the date Rs.3,11,164/-(rounded off) of award(M)
22. Total amount including Rs.10,76,321/- interest(L + M)
23. P-1 : Rs.61,894/-
Award amount released P-2 : Rs.1,96,849/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 50/59
25. Mode of disbursement of the N.A. award amount to the petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance of 25/05/2024 the award FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 15/05/2020
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Dharambir
3. Age of the deceased : 23 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Driver
5. Income of the deceased : NIL
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Surjeet 27 Years Father of the
deceased
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 51/59 Sunita (2) 29 Years Sister of the deceased Rajbir (3) 45 Years Brother of the deceased Dharampal (4) 40 Years Brother of the deceased Memwati (5) 30 Years Sister of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) NIL
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) N.A.
9. Less-Personal expenses of N.A. the deceased(C) MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 52/59
10. Monthly loss of N.A. dependency[(A+B)-=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency N.A. (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) N.A.
13. Total loss of dependency N.A. (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.44,000/- each consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of NIL estate(J)
18. Compensation towards NIL MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 53/59 funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.44,000/-
COMPENSATION(F+G+H
+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the date Rs.17,894/-(rounded off) of award(M)
22. Total amount including Rs.61,894/- to each petitioner interest(L + M)
23. Entire Award amount released
24. Award amount kept in FDRs NIL
25. Mode of disbursement of the N.A. award amount to the petitioner (s) MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 54/59
26. Next date for compliance of 25/05/2024 the award FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 01/08/2010
2. Name of the deceased : Rakesh @ Rajesh @ Naresh
3. Age of the deceased : 21 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Sweetmaker/ Halwai
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a Unskilled Person prevailing in U.P. at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 55/59 (1) Patiram 64 Years Father of the decease (2) Sharda Devi 49 years Mother of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs. 4,558/- per month deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 40% (B)
9. Less-Personal One half deduction has been done expenses of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 3,190.60/-
dependency[(A+B)-
=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.38,287.20/- (rounded off) dependency (Dx12) MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 56/59
12. Multiplier(E) '18'
13. Total loss of Rs.6,89,170/-(rounded off) dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss P1 : Rs. 44,000/-
of consortium(H) P2 : Rs. 44,000/-
16. Compensation for loss NIL of love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss Rs. 20,000/-
of estate(J)
18. Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
towards funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL P1: Rs.44,000/-
COMPENSATION
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 57/59 (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) P2: Rs.7,73,170/-
20.
RATE OF 8%
INTEREST
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to P1: Rs.17,307/-(rounded off) the date of award(M) P2: Rs.3,04,114/-(rounded off)
22. Total amount including interest P1: Rs.61,307/-
(L + M) P2: Rs.10,77,284/-
23.
Award amount P1: Rs.61,307/-
released
P2: Rs.77,284/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 58/59
25. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award of the award amount to the petitioner (s)
26.
Next date for 25/05/2024
compliance of the
award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 24.04.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
directions to put up the same on 25.05.2024.
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI MACT No. 115/19 Surender Singh & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 192/19 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 193/19 Surjeet & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors MACT No. 393/19 Patiram Vs Ved Prakash & Ors Page No. 59/59