Delhi District Court
Mrs. Babita vs Mohd. Hannan (Owner) on 4 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH: PRESIDING
OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: (WEST-01):TIS
HAZARI COURTS; DELHI
MACT Case No. 632/2019
1. Mrs. Babita
W/o Sh. Sushil Kumar (husband)
Aged about 25 years
2. Mahima (Daughter)
D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
aged about 11 years
3. Nancy (Daughter)
D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
aged about 6 years
4. Khushbu (Daugther)
D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
aged about 4 years
5. Aditya Kumar (Son)
S/o Sh. Sushil Kumar
Aged about 3 years
The petitioners No. 2 to 5 are minor and petitioner no.1 is
mother/natural guardian of the petitioners No. 2 to 5.
All R/o H. No. 176, Vill. Dehapa, Distt. Sambhal, UP-244302
....... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mohd. Hannan (Owner)
S/o Sh. Shameem Akhtar
R/o D-23, Near Reliance Fresh,
Fate Nagar, West Delhi,
New Delhi-110018
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 1/25
2. United India Insurance Corporation Ltd. (Insurer)
C-20, Janak Cinema Complex, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Policy no. 2219043117P114987952
3. Mohd. Fahad (Driver)
S/o Sh. Nazarul Islam
R/o Khaggu Sarai Sambhal,
Moradabad, UP
........ Respondents
Date of Institution: : 09.09.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 24.02.2021
Date of pronouncement: : 04.03.2021
AWARD
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.02.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident No intimation has been by the Investigation Officer to the received by this Court as Claims Tribunal. the accident in question took place in the jurisdiction of PS Nakhasa (Sambhal), UP
3. Date of Intimation of the accident Date not mentioned by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Not applicable Section 173 Cr. P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident DAR has not been filed Information Report (DAR) by the in the present matter as Investigating Officer before Claims the accident in question Tribunal. took place in the jurisdiction of MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 2/25 Nakhasa(Sambhal) UP
6. Date of service of DAR on the N.A Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the N.A. claimant (s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all N.A respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the .....
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the NA.
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact Not mentioned number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of Yes the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company No admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 3/25 Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant Legal offer was not given
(s) to the offer of the Insurance in the present matter Company.
18. Date of the award 04.03.2021
19. Whether the award was passed Yes with the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) Not mentioned 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.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) 19.02.2021 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of Dehpa,Sambhal, the Claimant(s). Dahpa, Uttar Pradesh
24. Details of savings bank account(s) Petitioner no.1 A/c no.
of the claimant(s) and the address 002310550019365 of the bank with IFSC Code. Petitioner no.2 A/c no.
002310550019362 Petitioner no.3 A/c no.
002310550019363 Petitioner no.4 A/c no.
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 4/25002310550019364 Petitioner no.5 A/c no.
0023105500193626 Bank- Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Moradabad IFSC Code ICIC00MORAD
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account (s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, ADJ/MACT/Parking IFSC Code, name and branch of Account of SBI Tis the bank of the Claims Tribunal in Hazari Courts, Delhi as which the award amount is to be informed by the Chief deposited/transfered. Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MICR:- 110002126, IFSC Code:-
SBIN0000726
1. This judgment -cum- award shall decide the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by the petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased Sh. Sushil in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2018 at about 9 PM, the deceased alongwith his friend namely Sh. Suraj were going to Village Dehpa, UP on the motorcycle Vikrant. It has been further stated that the said motorcycle was ridden by the deceased Sushil MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 5/25 and Sh. Suraj was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. It has been further stated that at about 9 :00 PM, when they reached at Sing Pur Village, then, all of a sudden, a car i.e. WagonR bearing no. DL-
4CAM-8337 came from wrong side from Hasanpur in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed without blowing any horn and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. It has been further stated that due to the forceful impact, the deceased and his friend Sh. Suraj fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. It has been further stated that deceased Sh. Sushil Kumar expired on the spot of the accident itself.
3. It has been further stated that after the accident, the dead body of the deceased was taken by the ambulance to the District Hospital.
4. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioners, FIR No.90/2018 dated 06.02.2018: u/s 279/304A IPC PS Nakhasa (Sambhal), UP was registered.
5. It has been further stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 31 years of age and he was doing Tent Work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
6. It has been further stated that the deceased is survived by his wife, three minor daughters and one minor son. It has been further stated that the petitioner no.1 is the wife of the deceased, the petitioners no.2 to 4 are the minor daughters of the deceased and the petitioner no.5 is the minor son of the deceased.
7. In total, the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) on account of MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 6/25 compensation.
8. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the driver of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
9. Written statement to the claim petition has been jointly filed by the respondents no.1 & 3 stating therein that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent no.3 in causing the accident in question. It has been further stated that the deceased has received injuries by the negligence of himself as he was riding motor cycle negligently and at the fast speed. It has been further stated that the respondent no.3 was neither rash nor negligent at the time of accident and accident occurred as the driver of another vehicle applied sudden break. It has been further stated that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 4CAM 8337 was insured with United Insurance Company Ltd. having policy no. 2219043117P114987952 valid from 19.01.2018 to 18.01.2019. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
10. Written statement has also been filed by the insurance company i.e. by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it has been stated that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. It has been further stated that the offending vehicle bearing no.DL 4CAM 8337 was not involved in the accident. It has been further stated that the accident involved two vehicles but only the driver, owner and insurance MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 7/25 company of the car was made parties. It has been further stated that being a case of composite negligence, the owner, driver and insurer should be impleaded as parties. It has been admitted that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. DL 4CAM 8337 was insured with it vide policy No. 2219043117P114987952 for the period from 19.01.2018 to 18.01.2019 in the name of Md. Hannan. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
11. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 27.11.2019:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Sushil Kumar suffered fatal injuries in the accident took place on 05.02.2018 at about 9 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 4CAM 8337 by respondent no.3 Md. Fahad, being owned by Md.
Hannan,(respondent no.1) and insured with the respondent no.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
12. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 Smt. Babita (wife of the deceased) as PW- 1 and in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present claim petition.
The petitioner no.1 has relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of her Voter I Card Ex.PW1/1
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 8/25
(ii) Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2
(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of daughter
of the deceased namely Mahima Ex.PW1/3
(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of daughter
of the deceased namely Baby Nanci Ex.PW1/4
(v) Copy of Aadhar Card of daughter
of the deceased namely Khushbu Ex.PW1/5
(vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of son of the
deceased namely Master Aditya Kumar Ex.PW1/6
(vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sushil Kumar Ex.PW1/7
13. In the cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, PW1 admitted it to be correct that she was not the eye witness to the accident in question. PW1 further stated that she came to know about the accident when she received a call from her brother-in-law namely Bunty. PW1 further stated that her deceased husband was having driving license. PW1 further stated that the driving license of her husband was misplaced in the accident in question. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband was not having any driving license at the time of accident. PW1 admitted it to be correct that they were the residents of Uttar Pradesh. PW1 further stated that at the time of accident, they were residing at District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. PW1 admitted it to be correct that she had not filed any documentary proof regarding income and occupation of her husband. PW1 has denied the suggestion that she was not entitled to the compensation as claimed in her affidavit.
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 9/2514. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Salman as PW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and the copy of his Aadhar card as Ex.PW2/1.
15. In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that the deceased was not known to him. PW2 further stated that he was coming from Dehpa and going to Sambhal after taking documents of the vehicle. PW2 further stated that his friend Saddam was also with him. PW2 further stated that both the deceased were coming from Sambhal. PW2 further states that he had seen the accident from a distance of 40- 50 feet. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was gray colour Wagon R Car. PW2 admitted it to be correct that there was a head on collision. PW2 further stated that the accident occurred at 9 pm and there was dim light on the road where the accident took place. PW2 further stated that there was normal traffic and there was no divider on the road. PW2 has denied the suggestion that the WagonR car was not negligent for the accident. PW2 has denied the suggestion that the deceased was negligent as they were driving negligently.
16. PW2 further stated that after the accident, the ambulance was called by public persons. PW2 further stated that the ambulance came after 20-25 minutes. PW2 further stated that he did not know who called the police. PW2 further stated that the police came after the ambulance. PW2 further states that he waited for 25 minutes at the spot of the accident after the accident. PW2 further stated that he was there when the police arrived at the spot of the accident. PW2 further MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 10/25 stated that he did not disclose about the offending vehicle at the spot of the accident to the police as he was afraid. PW2 further stated that after the accident, driver of the offending vehicle run away from the spot of the accident. PW2 further stated that he could not try to stop him as he was near the deceased.
17. PW2 further stated that the deceased persons were wearing the helmet at the time of accident. PW2 has denied the suggestion that the deceased persons were not wearing helmet as the same was not seized by the police. PW2 further stated that after 20- 25 days, police called him at the police station and his statement was recorded by the police. PW2 further stated that his mobile number was taken by the public person and the same was given to the police by the public person. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he had not given his mobile number to anyone.
18. PW2 further stated that he was taken to the spot of the accident by the police for preparation of site plan. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of the accident at the time of the accident. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle i.e. WagonR car was not involved in the accident in question.
19. The respondents have not led any evidence in their defence.
20. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner No.1 has also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioner no.1 under MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 11/25 MCTAP as well.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 121. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 166 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.3.
22. The petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 Smt. Babita as PW-1. PW-1 has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.3.
23. The petitioners have further examined Sh. Salman as PW-
2. PW-2 is the eye witness to the accident in question. PW-2 has categorically stated that the accident in question was caused on account of head of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.3.
24. PW-2 has been cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents but even during his cross-examination, he has stuck to the point that the accident in question took place on account of th rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.3 and he was also coming from wrong side.
25. The respondents No. 1 & 3 have not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, they have utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence of the respondent no.3.
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that in the case MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 12/25 in hand, the charge-sheet pertaining to the FIR No.90/2018 dated 06.02.2018: u/s 279/304A IPC PS Nakhasa (Sambhal), UP was filed before the concerned court.
27. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
28. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE NO. 229. The petitioners, in the claim petition have claimed that the deceased was aged about 31 years on the date of the accident. The copy of the Aadhar Card of the deceased Sushil Kumar is there on record. As per the Aadhar Card of the deceased, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.01.1987. As such, the age of the deceased, in the opinion of this Tribunal, has to be counted from the date of birth of the deceased which has been mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased. The date of accident is 05.02.2018. Accordingly, the age of MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 13/25 the deceased is taken as 31 years on the date of accident.
30. In the claim petition, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was doing the business of Ten work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month but no document has been placed on record by the petitioners to show that the deceased was doing the business of Tent Work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. As such, to my mind, the petitioners have utterly failed to prove on record the income of the deceased.
31. As such, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an Unskilled person in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The date of accident is 05.02.2018 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs. 7400/-.
32. The petitioners, in the claim petition have stated that the deceased left behind his wife and five minor daughters.
33. The petitioner no.1 has been examined on 24.02.2021 in accordance with the MCTAP. The petitioner No.1 in the statement recorded on 24.02.2021 stated that at the time of the accident, the deceased was the owner of Tent House and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She has further stated that she is housewife and not working anywhere. She has further stated that all his children are studying in school.
34. As such, the petitioners no.1 to 5 are to be taken as dependents upon the deceased at the time of the accident.
35. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 14/25 3483/08', the deceased might have been spending one- fourth of Rs.7400/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind 5 dependents on the deceased. Therefore, after deducting one- fourth towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to Rs. 5550/- =(Rs. 7400/- less Rs. 1850/-).
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a 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.MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 15/25
(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."
37. The 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 in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 16/25 Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
38. Going by the ratio of the abovestated two authorities, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased which is 31 years in the case in hand, accordingly, the multiplier of 16 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
39. An addition of 40% on account of the future prospects has to be given as the age of the deceased was 31 years. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured has to be calculated as Rs.7770/- (Rs.5550/- + Rs.2220/- (40% of remaining amount/- which is 40% of Rs.5550/-).
40. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 16 (for the age group of 31 years to 35 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.14,91,840/- = (Rs.7770x 12 x 16).
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 date of decision 31.10.2017, has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. The aforesaid amounts are to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
42. In view of the abovesaid judgment, I hereby award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
43. Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs.15,61,840/-
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 17/25(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Only)= (Rs.14,91,840/- + Rs. 70,000/-) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. R E L I EF
44. I award Rs.15,61,840/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 09.09.2019 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The petitioner no.1 shall have 40% share in the award amount and the petitioners no.2 to 5 shall have 15% each share in the award amount.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
45. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are 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 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 18/2546. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondents no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.15,61,840/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs.1,61,840/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Only) shall be released to the petitioner no.1 i.e. the wife of the deceased keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and in the entirety of the facts.
47. The rest of the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- shall be kept in 140 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to 140 months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioners in their abovementioned shares. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
48. As stated herein above, since the petitioner No. 2 to 5 are minor, the amount of their FDRs shall not be released until they reach the age of their majority.
49. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, 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 MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 19/25 statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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.
(g) 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.
(h) 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.
50. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 20/25 Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI 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 to. 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 the Hon'ble High Court as contained 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 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
51. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, the insurance company/respondent no. 2 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 06.04.2021.
A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 21/25A 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). A copy of this award be sent by the Ahlmad on the e-mail address of the Nodal Officer of the bank immediately as mentioned in the award.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by PRITAM
PRITAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2021.03.06
10:26:16
Announced in the open court +0530
On 04.03.2021 (PRITAM SINGH)
Presiding Officer, MACT
(WEST-01)/THC/Delhi
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 22/25
FORM -IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :- 05.02.2018
2. Name of the deceased :- Sushil Kumar
3. Age of the deceased :- 31 years
4. Occupation of the deceased :- Tent Work
5. Income of the deceased :- Rs.7400/- as per Minimum Wages
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(I) Babita 25 years Wife of the deceased
(ii) Mahima 11 years Daughter of the deceased
(iii) Nancy 6 years Daughter of the deceased
(iv) Khushbu 4 years Daughter of the deceased
(v) Aditya Kumar 3 years Son of the deceased
Computation of Compensation:-
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal
No.
7. Income of the Rs. 7400/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 40%
(B)
9. Less-Personal 1/4th has been deducted
expenses of the
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 23/25
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.7770/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs. 93,240/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) 16
13. Total loss of Rs.14,91,840/-
dependency (Dx12xE=
F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss Rs.40,000/-
of consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss Rs.15,000/-
of estate(I)
17. Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses(J)
18. TOTAL Rs.15,61,840/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+=K)
19. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
20. Interest amount up to Rs. 2,08,896/-(1 year 5 month & 25
the date of award (L) days)
21. Total amount including Rs. 17,70,736/-
interest (K + L)
`22. Award amount Rs.1,61,840/-
released
23. Award amount kept in Rs.14,00,000/-
FDRs
24. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 24/25
25. Next date for 06.04.2021
compliance of the
award
(PRITAM SINGH)
Presiding Officer, MACT
(WEST-01)/THC/Delhi
04.03.2021
MACT Case No. 632/2019 Page No. 25/25