Delhi District Court
Sh. Paramjeet Singh (Husband Of ... vs Sh. Shivraj Singh on 21 July, 2018
MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5740/16 (Old MACP No. 296/15)
1. Sh. Paramjeet Singh (Husband of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal
2. Ms. Kavita (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
3. Mr. Amit (Son of deceased)
S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
4. Mr. Sumit (Son of deceased)
S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
All R/o C4/50, Sultanpuri,
Delhi. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shivraj Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o Village Nagala Shimbhu Pukhta,
Post Katra, Tehsil Dataganj,
District Badaun, U.P. (Driver)
2. Sh. Jitender Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Pyara Singh,
R/o C66, Nav Jyoti Apartments,
Shalimar Garden Extension2,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P.(Registered Owner)
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 6, 1st Floor,
Near Metro Pillar No. 81,
Pusa Road, New Delhi(Insurance Co.) ........Respondents
AND
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 29
MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
MAC Petition No. 5741/16 (Old MACP No. 297/15)
Sh. Paramjeet Singh (Father of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal,
R/o C4/50, Sultanpuri,
Delhi. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shivraj Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o Village Nagala Shimbhu Pukhta,
Post Katra, Tehsil Dataganj,
District Badaun, U.P. (Driver)
2. Sh. Jitender Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Pyara Singh,
R/o C66, Nav Jyoti Apartments,
Shalimar Garden Extension2,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P.(Registered Owner)
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 6, 1st Floor,
Near Metro Pillar No. 81,
Pusa Road, New Delhi(Insurance Co.) ........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 5739/16 (Old MACP No. 298/15)
Sh. Lala Ram,
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal,
R/o H.No. 143, Block P1,
Gali No. 6, Sultanpuri,
Delhi. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shivraj Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o Village Nagala Shimbhu Pukhta,
Post Katra, Tehsil Dataganj,
District Badaun, U.P. (Driver)
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 29
MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
2. Sh. Jitender Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Pyara Singh,
R/o C66, Nav Jyoti Apartments,
Shalimar Garden Extension2,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P.(Registered Owner)
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 6, 1st Floor,
Near Metro Pillar No. 81,
Pusa Road, New Delhi(Insurance Co.) ........Respondents
APPEARENCES
Ms. Kavita Tyagi, adv for petitioners.
Sh. K.R. Sharma, Adv for respondents no. 1 & 2.
Sh. V. K. Puri, adv for respondent no. 3.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of all these claim petitions
with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Saroj Bala (MACP No. 5740/16) and
by Ms. Geeta (MACP No. 5741/16) and grievous injuries sustained by
petitioner/injured Lala Ram (MACP No. 5739/16) in Motor Vehicular Accident
which occurred on 26.04.2015 at about 1:15 pm at Outer Ring, about 500
meter ahead of Mukundpur Red Light, Delhi, involving Truck bearing
registration no. HR747474 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven in rash
and negligent manner by its driver namely Shivraj Singh (R1 herein).
2. All these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording evidence vide order dated 07.06.2017 passed by this Claims
Tribunal and MACP No. 5740/16 titled as " Paramjeet Singh & Ors. Vs.
Shivraj Singh & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the
evidence was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the
purpose of all these matters.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 29
MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR petition, Smt. Saroj Bala (since expired) and Ms. Geeta (since expired) were sitting on pillion seat of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SNA5165 while they were going from Sultanpuri towards Nirankari Sant Samagam, Burari, Delhi. The said motorcycle was being driven by injured Lala Ram and Saroj and Geeta were sitting as pillion rider on it. When they reached at Outer Ring Road, about 500 meters ahead of Mukundpur Red Light, Delhi, one Truck bearing registration no. HR747474 which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle. Due to the said forceful impact, Geeta and Saroj sustained fatal injuries and Lala Ram sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to Trauma Centre, Civil Line, where Smt. Saroj was declared dead. Later on, Geeta also expired. Lala Ram was medically examined vide MLC No. P203782. FIR No. 357/15 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. Jahangir Puri with regard to the accident in question. The said vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. It is averred in MACP No. 5740/16 that Smt. Saroj Bala was aged about 47 years old and was looking after all the household work. The petitioners are her husband and children. All the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased for their daily needs. A sum of Rs. 50,000/ was spent on performing last rites of deceased. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest against all the respondents on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is averred in MACP No. 5741/16 that Ms. Geeta was aged about 29 years old; she was doing private job and was earning Rs. 12,000/ per month. The petitioner is her father. The petitioner was dependent upon the Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 income of deceased. A sum of Rs. 50,000/ was spent on performing last rites of deceased. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest against all the respondents.
6. Respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have filed separate but identical WS in all the petitions, wherein they have raised preliminary objections that the accident in question was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the motorcycle who was having two women on pillion seat and all the occupants of the motorcycle were not wearing helmets at the time of accident. It is claimed that driver of the motorcycle was also not having DL and he could not control his fast speed and got disbalanced, while he was trying to overtake the vehicle of respondent no.1 from left side after coming from behind and the respondent no. 1 did not hit the motorcycle from behind. On merits, they have simply denied the averments made in the petitions and have prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
7. Respondents no. 3 i.e. insurance company has filed separate but identical WS in all the petitions, wherein it has raised preliminary objections that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle. It has claimed that three persons were riding on the motorcycle which is meant for two persons only and the driver of motorcycle was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently. However, it has admitted that the aforesaid Truck was insured with it, having validity from 26.04.15 to 25.04.16. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the DAR petitions and has prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
8. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5740/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.11.2015 : Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
1) Whether the deceased Saroj Bala suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 26.04.2015 at about 13:15 hrs at Outer Ring Road, ahead Mukundpur Red Light, towards Wazirabad, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Jahangir Puri due to rashness and negligence on the part of Shivraj Singh who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR747479(sicHR747474), owned by Jitender Singh and insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd? OPP.
2) Whether the injured(sicpetitioners) is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
9. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5739/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.11.2015 :
1) Whether the deceased Geeta suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 26.04.2015 at about 13:15 hrs at Outer Ring Road, ahead Mukundpur Red Light, towards Wazirabad, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Jahangir Puri due to rashness and negligence on the part of Shivraj Singh who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR747479(sicHR747474), owned by Jitender Singh and insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd? OPP.
2) Whether the injured(sicpetitioners) is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
10. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5741/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.11.2015 : Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
1) Whether the injured Lala Ram suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 26.04.2015 at about 13:15 hrs at Outer Ring Road, ahead Mukundpur Red Light, towards Wazirabad, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Jahangir Puri due to rashness and negligence on the part of Shivraj Singh who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR74 7479(sicHR747474), owned by Jitender Singh and insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
11. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Saroj (Husband of deceased Saroj and father of deceased Geeta) and PW2 Sh. Lala Ram(alleged eye witness as well as injured). On the other hand, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have examined only one witness i.e. respondent no. 1 as R1W1 and closed their RE on 24.01.2018 through their counsel. However, the respondent no. 3/insurance company did not examine any witness towards its RE and closed the same on 24.01.18 through its counsel.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A/IV B vide order dated 15.05.2018 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN ALL THE CASES)
13. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Lala Ram (injured in MACP No. 5739/16) is relevant. According to the claim set up by the petitioners in MACP Nos. 5740/16 & 5741/16, this witness was riding the Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 motorcycle no. DL8SNA5165, on which deceased Smt. Saroj and Ms. Geeta were sitting as pillion riders. He is also claimed to have sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question.
14. In his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW2/A), he has deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR to the effect that he had received injuries on 26.04.2015 at about 1:15 PM at Outer Ring Road, about 500 meter ahead of Mukundpur Red Light, while going towards Nirankari Samagam, Delhi. He further deposed that at the time of accident, he was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SNA5165 with Smt. Saroj Bala and Ms. Geeta who were sitting as pillion rider on the aforesaid motorcycle. When they were at Outer Ring Road, about 500 meters ahead of Mukundpur Red Light, the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. HR747474 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit against their motorcycle. As a result thereof, Smt. Saroj Bala and Ms. Geeta were severely injured and succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. They were removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre. He had sustained abrasions on right elbow and right knee. He categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck no. HR747474 by respondent no. 1. FIR No. 357/15 was registered at PS. Jahangir Puri with regard to said accident. He has relied upon the following documents: Serial Description of Remarks No. documents
1. Copy of his voter I card Ex. PW2/1 2. Copy of his DL Ex.PW2/2 3. Copy of RC of his Ex.PW2/3 motorcycle
4. Copies of his MLCs Mark A
15. During his crossexamination on behalf R1 & R2, he deposed that all of them were wearing helmets, however he could not say whether the helmets were seized by the police or not. He volunteered that he was not Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 aware about the said fact as he was hospitalized. He deposed that his motorcycle was about 2 feet from the left side of the road. He denied the suggestion that he was trying to overtake the aforesaid truck from left side of the road. He further deposed that he was driving his motorcycle at the speed of about 3035 kmph. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. He admitted that he never visited the spot of accident after the accident. There were number of public persons present at the spot at the time of accident. There was divider on the road where the accident took place. He did not see the offending truck before the accident. He had only seen the offending truck when it hit him. He denied the suggestion that he was driving his motorcycle at very high speed due to which he could not control the same or lost his balance or that due to said reason, all of them fell down on the road. He further denied the suggestion that driver of the truck did not hit his motorcycle from behind. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3, he denied the suggestion that due to triple riding on the motorcycle, the same got skipped and all of them fell down on the road.
16. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 Sh. Lala Ram that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, the testimony of this witness inspires confidence as he himself is also shown to have sustained injuries due to the accident and FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of this witness. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving Truck No. HR747474 in rash and negligent manner.
17. As noted above, the respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 during the course of inquiry. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex R1W1/A), he deposed that the alleged accident was not caused due to rash Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 and negligent driving on his part and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further deposed that the accident in question was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the motorcycle who was carrying two women on the pillion seat and all the occupants of the motorcycle were not wearing helmets. He further deposed that the driver of the motorcycle was not having valid DL and he could not control his fast speed and got disbalanced while he was trying to overtake his (R1W1) vehicle from the left side after coming from behind at very fast speed. During his crossexamination on behalf petitioners, he denied the suggestion that after hitting the motorcycle of the victims, he had driven his truck ahead or that he was apprehended by the public persons at a distance of about 500 meters from the place of accident. He deposed that he himself had seen from side mirror of the truck that none of the occupants of the motorcycle was wearing the helmet. He had seen them from a distance of about 25 feet or so before the accident. He denied the suggestion that the occupants of the motorcycle, were wearing helmets at the time of accident. He deposed that he could not tell the speed of the motorcycle of the victims as his attention was towards his own vehicle i.e. truck. He further deposed that the speed of his vehicle i.e. truck was about 35 kmph. He denied the suggestion that speed of the truck was 80 kmph at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that left side corner of front bumper of the aforesaid truck, was scratched due to the accident. He could not say if said portion of the truck, was found to have fresh damages at the time of its mechanical inspection. He denied the suggestion that he had hit the aforesaid truck against back side of the motorcycle of the victims or that he was driving the said truck in rash and negligent manner. He further denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to his sole negligence or that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. He further denied the suggestion that the driver of the motorcycle did not try to overtake the truck as claimed or that the motorcycle was not being driven at fast speed or that the motorcycle was being driven at normal speed while accident took place.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
18. It is quite apparent from the perusal of testimony of R1W1 that same is not reliable and the said respondent has tried to raise false defence during his chief examination in order to escape from legal punishment in the criminal case vide FIR No. 357/15 supra registered against him at PS. Jahangir Puri as also from liability to pay the compensation amount. Same stands established from the fact that the defence raised by him in his WS as well as in his testimony by way of affidavit(Ex. R1W1/A) that the driver of motorcycle was trying to overtake truck no. HR747474 from its left side and while coming from behind at very fast speed, get falsified from the copy of mechanical inspection report of the said truck, which clearly recites that there was fresh damage i.e. its left side corner of front bumper was found to be slightly scratched at the time of its mechanical inspection carried on 28.04.15 i.e. just after one day from the date of accident. Not only this, copy of mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle of victims would show that there were fresh damages, as already noted above, found at the time of its mechanical inspection. Said report would show that apart from other damages, its head light visor was found scratched and broken from right side. Had it been the position where driver of motorcycle would not have rammed from the back side of aforesaid truck, its front headlight visor would not have been broken in the manner, as was found to be there in the mechanical inspection report. Same would clearly show that the said respondent has concocted a false story to avoid payment of compensation amount in these cases.
19. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 357/15 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. Jahangir Puri with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly), would show that same was registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Lala Ram (PW2), wherein he has attributed the entire negligence on the part of driver of Truck in causing the accident in question. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on 26.04.2015 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 involvement of Truck No. HR747474 at the instance of the petitioners.
20. The very fact that the police has filed chargesheet (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly) before the Court of Magistrate claiming therein that it was due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. HR747474 by its driver namely Shivraj Singh/R1 (accused in State case) that the accident in question had occurred, due to which Smt. Saroj Bala and Ms. Geeta had sustained fatal injuries and Lala Ram had sustained grievous injuries, also points out towards the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle on the part of respondent no. 1. The aforesaid injured Lala Ram (PW2) has also been cited as prosecution witness in the list of witnesses filed with the said chargesheet.
21. Copies of MLCs (which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly) of deceased Smt. Saroj Bala and Ms. Geeta, would show that they had been removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre with alleged history of RTA on 26.04.15 at 1:35 pm. They are shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the bodies of deceased Smt. Saroj Bala and Geeta. Copies of PM Reports (which are also part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly) would show that cause of death of Saroj Bala is opined due to combined effect of hemorrhagic shock due to multiple visceral injuries and head injury produced by blunt force impact and cause of death of Geeta is opined due to head injury produced by blunt force impact. The injuries as mentioned in the relevant columns of external injuries of the reports, are also consistent with the injuries which are sustained in road traffic accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
22. The MLC (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/7) of injured Lala Ram prepared at Sushruta Trauma Centre, would further reveal that he had been removed to said hospital on 26.04.2015 at 1:35 pm with alleged history of Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 Road Traffic Accident (RTA). It is mentioned in MLC that he had sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are also consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents.
23. Further, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 28.04.2015 (which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly) of Truck No. HR747474, would show fresh damages i.e. its front bumper from left side corner was found slightly scratched. Likewise, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 28.04.2015 (which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/7 colly) of motorcycle bearing no. DL8SNA5165 of victims, would show that its right side body, legguard, handle and hand brake lever end were found scratched; its headlight visor was found scratched and broken from right side; its right side front foot rest was found scratched and bended. Said documents have not been disputed by the respondents and corroborate the ocular testimony of PW2 Lala Ram to the extent that the aforesaid truck had hit the back portion of the motorcycle of the victims. Moreover, the offending truck is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of seizure memo dated 26.04.15 (date of accident also being 26.04.15)(which is also part of DAR).
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Saroj Bala and Geeta had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner/injured Lala Ram had sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 26.04.2015 at about 13.15 hrs at Outer Ring Road, 500 meter ahead from Mukundpur Red Light, Delhi, due to negligence on the part of driver of Truck No. HR747474. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in all these claim petitions.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 ISSUE NO.2
25. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Compensation in MACP No. 5739/16(Injured Lala Ram)
26. PW2 Sh. Lala Ram i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, where he was medically examined. He further deposed that he had sustained abrasions on right elbow and right knee and his treatment continued for about 15 days. He deposed to have spent about Rs. 10,000/ on his treatment. None of the respondents crossexamined this witness on this aspect. However, the petitioner/injured has failed to file any medical bill in respect of injuries sustained by him due to the accident in question. Hence, no amount is being awarded to the petitioner under this head.
27. The nature of injuries sustained by petitioner Lala Ram has already been noted above. He is not found to have sustained grievous injuries as per his medical treatment i.e. MLC (Mark A)brought on record. Even during the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that Lala Ram had sustained simple injury due to the accident. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record, the discussion made herein above and the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner being simple, I hereby award total notional amount of Rs. 15,000/towards pain and sufferings, special diet etc to him.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 Compensation Amount in MAC Petition No. 5740/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
28. As already stated above, the claimants are the husband and three children of deceased. PW1 Sh. Paramjeet Singh ( husband of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased Saroj Bala was aged 47 years; she was looking after the entire household work. He further deposed that deceased was rendering all type of services and was taking good care of their house. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/2 deceased Saroj Bala
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/3 deceased Geeta
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/4 Kavita
5. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Amit Ex. PW1/5
6. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/6 Sumit 7. Copy of DAR Ex. PW1/7 During his cross examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, he denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 50,000/for performing last rites of the deceased.
29. Counsel for petitioners fairly conceded during the course of arguments that for want of cogent evidence being led with regard to monthly income of deceased, her monthly income should be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
30. Undisputedly, no document concerning educational qualification of deceased Smt. Saroj Bala has been placed on record. Hence, her income has to be assessed as that of NonMatriculate under Minimum Wages Act during the relevant period. As on the date of accident i.e. 26.04.2015, the Wages of NonMatriculate under Minimum Wages Act were Rs. 10,010/per month.
31. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
32. Now, the question arises as to how much deduction should be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in order to compute the loss of dependency. Although, counsel for petitioners argued that there should not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased as held in Manmeet Singh's case mentioned supra but said submission is not tenable in view of recent pronouncement of our own High Court in the matter titled as "Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Murgan & Ors." reported at 2016 (3) ACC 452.
33. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit ( Ex. PW1/A) that the age of deceased was 47 years at the time of accident. He has relied Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 upon copy of Aadhar Card ( which is part of Ex.PW1/2 colly.) of deceased Smt. Saroj Bala, wherein year of her birth is mentioned as 1969. The date of accident is 26.04.2015. Accordingly, the age of deceased is taken as 46 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
34. Considering the fact that there are three dependents(there being no evidence that husband of deceased was also dependent upon her), there has to be deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 25% towards element of future prospects in the monthly income of deceased(she being aged about 46 years at the time of accident), in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. The Minimum Wages of Non Matriculate under Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi as on 26.04.2015, were Rs.10,010/ per month. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 13,01,300/ (Rs. 10,010/X 2/3 X 125/100 X 12 X 13). Hence, a sum of Rs. 13,01,300/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Sh. Paramjeet Singh (being husband of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 13,01,300/
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/ Total Rs. 13,71,300/ Rounded off to Rs. 13,72,000/ Compensation Amount in MAC Petition No. 5741/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
38. As already stated above, the claimant is the father of deceased. PW1 Sh. Paramjeet Singh (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/B) that deceased Geeta was aged 28 years old;
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 she was doing private job and was looking after the household work. He further deposed that deceased was rendering invaluable services to the family and was helping them financially also. He also deposed that she used to contribute her 100% salary in the household works. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Election I Card of Ex PW1/8 deceased Geeta
2. Copy of his Election I Card Ex. PW1/9
39. During his cross examination on behalf of respondent no.3, he admitted that he had not filed any document pertaining to income of his deceased daughter.
40. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that since deceased Geeta was contributing 100% of her salary in the household work as deposed by PW1, loss of dependency should be computed while awarding compensation in this case. It was further argued that the respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal and thus, it is a fit case where appropriate compensation calculated on the basis of laid down parameters in the catena of decisions delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various Hon'ble High Courts, should be awarded in favour of the claimant.
41. On the other hand, counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that since the only claimant is the father of deceased and claimant was not financially dependent upon deceased at the time of accident, loss of estate should be awarded in this case. He further submitted that while calculating loss of estate, 15% of the notional income of deceased should be considered as her savings as deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and would have spent maximum amount on her personal and living expenses.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 42 Now, the first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the claimant is entitled to loss of dependency or loss of estate. This question came up for consideration on several occasions before our own High Court as well as before various other High Courts. In the matter titled as "A Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy & Ors.", I (2005) ACC 304(DB), Hon'ble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has summarized the principles enunciated on this issue in para 19 of the judgment. Same reads as under: "xxxxxx
(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependant members of his family as result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the dependants beneficially entitled. In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power under section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed(Note: for example, if the dependants of a deceased Hindu are a widow aged 35 years and mother aged 75 years, irrespective of the fact that they succeed equally under the Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal may award a larger share to the widow and a smaller share to the mother, as the widow is likely to live longer). But, in the second category of cases, no such adjustments or alternation of shares is permissible and he entire amount has to be awarded to the benefit of the estate. Even if the Tribunal wants to specify the sharing of the compensation amount, it may have to divide the amount strictly in accordance with the personal law governing succession, as the amount awarded and recovered forms part of the estate of deceased.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
(ii) Where the claim is by the depdendants, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases.
xxxxxxx"
43. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the celebrated decision of "Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors.", II(2010) ACC 64 as well as by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case titled as "Jacob Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation", 2018 ACJ 91.
44 Having considered the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the principles discussed in the above referred decisions, it is quite crystal clear that the claimant shall be entitled to loss to estate and not loss of dependency, in view of the reason that the claimant has failed to lead any cogent or definite evidence to show that he was financially dependent upon Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 the earnings of deceased Geeta at the time of accident. It is an undisputed fact that deceased Geeta was unmarried at the time of accident but it is nowhere the case of claimant that he was financially dependent upon her income. His entire testimony is completely silent on this aspect.
45 This brings me down to the next question as to how much percentage of the income of deceased should be taken as the amount which would have been saved by deceased, in order to calculate loss to estate. Although, counsel for insurance company requested for taking only 15% of her notional income towards her part of savings but I am not convinced with the said contention. No doubt, a bachelor has a tendency to spent more on him/her but at the same time, it is relevant to note that deceased Geeta was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and she was already engaged with injured Lala Ram @ Raju. This fact can be gathered from the contents of FIR No. 357/15 supra, which is shown to have been registered with regard to accident in question on the statement of injured Lala Ram himself, wherein he has claimed that Geeta was his fiance. This fact has nowhere been disputed or controverted from the side of respondents throughout the inquiry. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that female child is more courteous and responsible child as compared to male child and she always has more sense of responsibility towards household work. Moreover, deceased, as already noted above, being aged 28 years old at the time of accident, was matured enough to have that much sense of responsibility that she should have saved maximum amount of her earnings for her better future as well as for betterment of her family as a whole. This is more so when soon she was going to be married in near future and was knowing that she would be requiring handsome amount for said purpose. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that deceased Geeta would have definitely been saving atleast 50% of her monthly income towards the savings.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
46. For want of cogent evidence regarding monthly income of deceased Ms. Geeta being available on record, her monthly income has to be assessed as that of NonMatriculate under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question in view of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", mentioned supra. The certificate dated 29.05.15 as also the verified copy of admission register of deceased from Government Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, Sultanpuri, are filed alongwith DAR. According to said documents, the date of birth of deceased is 13.02.1985. Hence, the age of deceased Geeta was 30 years 2 months and 13 days at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in this case. The minimum wages of NonMatriculate were Rs. 10,010/ per month as on the date of accident which is 26.04.2015. Thus, the total loss to estate would come out to Rs. 10,21,020/ (Rs.10,010/ X 1/2 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 10,21,020/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
47. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner on account of funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
2. Loss to estate Rs. 10,21,020/
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 10,36,020/ Rounded Off to Rs. 10,36,100/
48. This brings me down to the next question as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 company tried to avoid the liability of insurance company on the ground that since there was triple riding on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SNA 5165 at the time of accident, same constitutes violation of Section 128 M.V Act and thus, there is contributory negligence on the part of pillion riders and the driver of the said motorcycle. Hence, appropriate amount should be deducted from the compensation amount.
49. No doubt, it is an admitted position on record that three persons were travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SNA5165 at the time of accident. However, it does not ipsofacto lead to any inference that there was any contributory negligence on the part of persons riding on the said motorcycle, in the occurrence of accident in question. While deciding issue no. 1 in the preceding paras, it has already been held that the accident in question was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of truck no. HR747474.
50. The plain reading of Section 128 of M.V. Act, would show that it casts a duty on driver of two wheeled motor vehicle not to carry more than one person in addition to himself/herself on such vehicle. Rule 123 of Road Safety Rules is also relevant in this regard but at the same time, it is relevant to note that these provisions are made as safety measures for driver and pillion rider and breach thereof may amount to 'negligence' but such negligence will not amount to 'contributory negligence' on the part of pillion rider or 'composite negligence' on the part of driver of the motorcycle, unless such negligence was partly the immediate cause of the accident or damage suffered by the pillion rider. In other words, if the damage in the accident has not been caused partly on account of violation of Section 128 of M.V. Act by pillion rider of the motorcycle, the pillion rider is not guilty of contributory negligence and there would be no composite negligence on the part of its driver. There is another aspect of the matter. The driving of three persons on the motorcycle, may constitute violation of traffic rules but it does not ipsofacto establish that Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 motorcycle was being driven rashly or negligently or that it was out of the control of its driver. While taking this view, I am fortified by the judgments rendered in cases titled as "Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sabra & Ors", MAC APP. 107/2017, decided on 18.09.17 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, "Devi Singh Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors", 2008(1) Transport And Accidents Cases (T.A.C.) 696(M.P.), "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vimla & Ors.", II(2017) ACC 307(DB) (All.), "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaswinder Kaur & Ors.", 2016 ACJ 936(P&H), "Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Devi & Ors.", II (2017) ACC 746 (DB)(All.), "Bimla Devi Vs. Surjeet Singh & Ors.", 2018 ACJ 945 (P & H), "Bharma Kallappa Murashetti & Ors. Vs. Karamjeet Kaur & Anr." 2017 ACJ 1758 (Karnt.).
51. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The respondents have failed to establish during the course of inquiry that either driver of motorcycle or any of his pillion riders, had contributed in any manner to the occurrence of accident or that any kind of overt fact on behalf of either of them, led to the accident in question. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there was no breach in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of insured. Hence, the insurance company is not entitled to recovery rights against the owner/insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
52. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 15,000/ in MAC Petition No. 5739/16, a sum of Rs. 13,72,000/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 5740/16 and a sum of Rs. 10,36,100/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 5741/16 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petitions i.e. 02.06.15 in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
53. Statements of petitioners/injured in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that the entire compensation amount in MACP No. 5739/16, shall immediately released to claimant Lala Ram through his saving bank account no. 37255457826 with SBI, Rajdhani Enclave, Delhi34, having IFSC Code. SBIN0017983.
54. However, out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5740/16, the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Parmjeet Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,72,000/ (Rupees Five Lac Seventy Two Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 Ms. Kavita shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lac Only) alongwith proportionate interest, petitioner no. 3 Mr. Amit shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and petitioner no. 4 Mr. Sumit shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
55. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 75,000/ (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only), shall be immediately released to him through his saving bank account no. 3707765819 with State Bank of India, Sultanpuri, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0004846 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of six months, twelve months, eighteen months and so on and so forth.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
56. Out of share amounts of petitioners no. 2 to 4, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ each(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to them through their saving bank account no. 30675396965 (of Ms. Kavita), 33699218735 (of Mr. Amit) and 33699237350 (of Mr. Sumit), with State Bank of India, B Block, Sultanpur, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0004846 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of six months, twelve months, eighteen months and so on and so forth. However, it shall be open for claimant Ms. Kavita to get further amount released at the time of her marriage.
57. In MACP No. 5741/16, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement of claimant, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ (Rupees One Lac Twenty Five Thousand Only), shall be immediately released to him through his saving bank account no. 3707765819 with State Bank of India, Sultanpuri, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0004846 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of six months, twelve months, eighteen months and so on and so forth.
58. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions: (I) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) The maturity amount(s) of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the savings bank accounts of the claimant(s) in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence.
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 29MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant(s) in respect of the savings bank accounts in which the award amount is to be sent/credited, without permission of the Court. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, the bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
59. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimants were examined in order to ascertain as to whether they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. All the claimants made statement on oath that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished their respective Forms No. 15G on record.
60. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts(directed to be released immediately to all the claimants), in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimants. Copy of this award be also given dasti alongwith Form nos. 15G furnished by claimants (after retaining their copies on record) to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of both the Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 29 MACP Nos. 5739/16, 5740/16 & 5741/16, FIR No. 357/15; PS.Jahangir Puri DOD: 21.07.2018 petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open
Court on 21.07.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Paramjeet Singh & Ors , Lala Ram Vs. Shivraj Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 29