Delhi District Court
Aarti Pathania (Wife Of Deceased), Fir ... vs Jagmohan on 31 October, 2023
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR-II :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 213/2023
CNR No. DLST01- 005176-2023
AARTI PATHANIA AND ORS. VS. JAGMOHAN AND
ORS.
FIR NO.73/2023 PS Saket
1. Aarti Pathania
w/o late Neeraj Kumar ..wife of the deceased
2. Aman Bhardwaj
S/o Late Neeraj Kumar ..son of the deceased
3. Smt. Suman Kumari
W/o Sh. Harish Kumar ..mother of the deceased
4. Harish Kumar
S/o Sh. Kishan Chand ..father of the deceased
All resident of :
R/o G-972, Block-G,
Sangam Vihar, South Delhi ....PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Sh. Jagmohan
S/o Sh. Janki Prasad
R/o H.No.F- 5-B Chattarpur Extension,
Mehrauli, New Delhi. ...Driver
2. Sh. Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Nathi Singh
R/o 636 Chirag Delhi
New Delhi ...Owner
3. GO Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ...Insurance Company
Date of Institution : 30.05.2023
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 26.10.2023
MACT No. 213/2023 1/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2023
JUDGMENT:
1. This claim for compensation arises out of the Detailed Accident Report u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioners for the fatal injuries suffered by deceased Neeraj Kumar in a vehicular accident which occurred on 12.02.2023 at about 7.45 AM with respect to which FIR No.73/2023 U/s 279/304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Saket and charge-sheet was filed U/s 279/304-A IPC against R-1 Jagmohan, driver of the offending vehicle. The same is treated as petition under Section u/s 166 and 140 MV Act.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 12.02.2023 at about 7.45 AM when the deceased Neeraj reached near Shamshaan Bhumi, Lado Sarai on his scooty, in the meantime, one bus bearing no. HR-55AB-2249 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooty from the right side. Due to this, the scooterist fell down and his head was ran over by the right side rear tyre of the same bus. Due to this impact, the scooterist received fatal injuries.
4. The driver and owner have contested the claim by filing their joint WS inter-alia denying that their vehicle was involved in the accident. It has been averred that though their MACT No. 213/2023 2/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
vehicle bearing no. HR-55AB-2249 was near the spot being driven by the driver Jagmohan the accident has not occurred with the said bus. Some unknown vehicle has hit the scooty of the deceased and fled from the spot. The respondent no. 1 only on humanitarian grounds took the injured to the hospital and got him admitted. The vehicle of the respondents has been falsely implicated in this case with connivance of the police officials. However, it has been admitted by the respondents that their vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company vide policy no. D055444332/15042022 valid from 17.04.2022 to 16.04.2023 and hence the respondent no. 3 being the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. There was no cause of action against the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2.
5. The respondent no. 3/ insurance company also resisted the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the liability of the insurance company is subject to the driver and owner holding a valid and effective DL, fitness and permit at the time of accident. It is averred that as per the verification report filed by the IO that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit to ply in Delhi that is why the respondents were challaned under Section 66(1)/192 of the MV Act. It is submitted that the offending vehicle possessed a permit in respect of Contract Carriage only for Haryana and the same was not valid in Delhi. It is further contended that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he was not following the traffic rules and regulations while plying his scooty on the road at the time of accident. Hence the respondent no. 3 is not liable for MACT No. 213/2023 3/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
compensation.
6. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 20.07.2023 following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the deceased Neeraj Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road accident which occurred on 12.02.2023 at about 7.45 AM at MB Road, Shamshan Bhoomi, Lado Sarai, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR-55AB-2249 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3..(OPP)
2. To what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined three witnesses. Sh. Harish Kumar (father of the deceased) was examined as PW1. Sh. Sandeep Ruhal (on behalf MACT No. 213/2023 4/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
of employer of the deceased) was examined as PW2. Sh. Arun Kumar (eye witness) was summoned and examined as PW3.
10. The respondent no. 3/insurance company examined Mr. Paramvir Sigh, Legal Associate, Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W1.
11. PW-1 Harish Kumar is the father of the deceased Neeraj Kumar who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that on 12.02.2023 his son namely Neeraj Kumar met with a road accident and died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. He was 33 years of age at the time of accident. He left behind himself as his father namely Harish Kumar, his wife namely Aarti Pathania, one minor son namely Aman Bhardwaj and his mother namely Suman Kumari. At the time of accident, his son was in a private job as a front office in Aloft Aerocity at Assest, 5B Aerocity,New Delhi and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.22500/- per month. He has relied upon the following documents alongwith his affidavit.
(i) Copies of aadhar card of Harish Kumar, Aarti Pathania, Suman Kumari, Aman Bhardwaj Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 (OSR)
(ii) Copies of PAN Card of Harish Kumar, Aarti Pathania, Suman Kumari, Aman Bhardwaj Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/8.
(iii) Copy o of aadhar card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3.
(iv) Copy of aadhar card, PAN Card and driving licence of the deceased Neeraj Kumar Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/11 (OSR)
(v) Pay slip of deceased Ex.PW1/12
(vi) The copy of 10th and 12th class marksheet of his deceased son Ex.PW1/13 to 14.(vii) DAR Ex.PW1/15 MACT No. 213/2023 5/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3/insurance company, he admitted that he was not present with his son Neeraj Kumar on 12.02.2023. He denied the suggestion that he is in fit condition to work. He also denied the suggestion that his son was not in a permanent job as front office in Aloft Aerocity. He denied that his deceased son did not die in any accidental injury.
12. The petitioners have also examined PW2 Sh. Sandeepruhal from Aloft Aerocity Assest 5B, Aerocity, New Delhi on behalf of the employer of the deceased. He appeared as a summoned witness and produced his authority letter issued on behalf of Mr. Vikas Oswal, General Manager for Aloft Aerocity, New Delhi as Ex.PW2/A. He also produced offer letter issued to the deceased for appoint at the position of front office talent as Ex.PW2/1. His appointment letter as Ex.PW2/2. His salary re- structing letter dated 15.10.2022 as Ex.PW2/3 which is showing his total remuneration as Rs.22,300/- and also produced his pay slip for the month of November 2022 as Ex.PW2/4 showing his gross salary as Rs.21,016/-.
In his cross-examination by counsel for insurance company, he sated that they are running a Hotel business. Before 01.10.2022 Neeraj Kumar was entitled to ESI Benefit but after the said date he was not entitled to said benefit. He admitted that he has not brought attendance record, ESI, PF record of Neeraj Kumar. However he voluntarily deposed that the attendance is reflected in his pay slips. He admitted that Neeraj Kumar was entitled to Group Insurance. They paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
MACT No. 213/2023 6/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
under the said cover to the family of deceased. Apart from the said compensation they did not give any other benefit to the family of deceased Ex-gratia or otherwise.
13. PW3 Sh. Arun Kumar is an eye witness to the accident and was summoned by the Court on an application moved by the application. He deposed that on 12.02.2023 at about 07.45 AM he was going to Lado Sarai for some personal work when he reached near Shamshaan Bhumi Lado Sarai in the meantime, he saw his friend Neeraj Kumar was going to his office on his scooty. In the meantime, one bus bearing no. HR- 55AB-2249 came in a rash and negligent manner in higher speed overtook him and hit the scooty of his friend from the right side of the bus. Due to the impact, he fell down from the scooty. After which the right rear tyre of the bus went over his head and after that the bus driver parked the bus on the side. Public gathered and the bus driver was apprehended by public and him someone from the public called the PCR, after which the PCR arrived in 10 minutes. Then the police called the ambulance and the ambulance arrived at the spot 15-20 minutes after the police. He followed the ambulance on his motorcycle to JPN Apex Trauma Centre where Neeraj Kumar was taken.
In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2, he stated that on the day of accident, he was going to buy a broom from the vendors who sell brooms on the road side of Lado sarai. The offending bus was of white color. He cannot tell whether there was any passenger in the offending vehicle. Again said, that there were some people in the MACT No. 213/2023 7/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
bus but he could not tell how many. The offending vehicle hit from its right side on the left of victims scooty. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing in the favour of the family of the deceased in order to enrich the family member of the deceased with undue monetary compensation since he is an interested witness. He also stated that police made enquires from him on the spot on the date of accident and his further statement was recorded in the PS on the same date. He also stated that victim was wearing helmet at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness. Ld. counsel for the insurance company also adopted the same cross-examination.
14. Insurance company has also examined Mr. Paramvir Singh, Legal Associate from Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1 who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.R3W1/1 and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Authority letter Ex.R3W1/2.
2. The insurance policy of offending vehicle bearing no. HR- 55AB-2249 Ex.R3W1/3
3. The original report of the permit on record Ex.R3W1/4.
4. Notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to driver and owner Ex.R3W1/5.
15. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PWs coupled with the criminal record placed, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused fatal injuries to the deceased by his rash and negligent driving.
MACT No. 213/2023 8/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has stated that the owner was not holding a valid and effective permit for plying his vehicle in Delhi on the date of accident. She also stated that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- should be deducted as the petitioners have received this amount through group insurance. She has relied upon judgment in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mamatha and others, Civil Appeal No. 3778 of 2015. She further contended that insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
17. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1/ Jagmohan. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 until proved to be contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents of the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents. The eye witness PW3 Sh. Arun Kumar had categorically deposed the fact about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by PW3 Arun Kumar.
MACT No. 213/2023 9/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
18. PW3 Sh. Arun Kumar has been cited as an eye witness even in the criminal proceedings. He has categorically deposed that offending bus bearing registration no. HR-55AB-2249 came in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed overtook him and hit the scooty of the deceased from right side of the bus. There is nothing coming up on record to disbelieve the version of the eye witness. Nothing material has come up in his cross- examination. Even in his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was going on his bike a little ahead and was hit by the offending vehicle from back side. Even the motor vehicle inspection report of both the vehicles support the case of the petitioners.
19. As per the motor vehicle inspection report of the offending bus produced by the IO on record, there were damages found on the bus due to accidental impact, its front bumper was scratched and front steel iron nickel pipe was pressed. The report further shows that the right head light of the bus was damaged. Similarly, in the motor vehicle inspection of the scooty of the deceased fresh damages are shown in the left side of the scooty. Both the inspection reports are hence fully supporting the case of the petitioners. Respondent no(s) 1 and 2 both have totally failed to explain the said damages in their vehicle. Furthermore, admittedly the respondent no. 1 has never filed any complaint to any authority for his false implication in the present case. Hence the contention of the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident is totally belied.
MACT No. 213/2023 10/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
20. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 / driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle was the material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioners or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioners is unrebutted and un-controverted.
21. Furthermore, it is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
22. In this regard observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. MACT No. 213/2023 11/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Pushpa Rana and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC online DEL 1700 has to be considered wherein it was held that :-
"the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004 pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (2) Criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charage-sheet under Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver; (3) certified copy of FIR wherein criminal case against the drive was lodged; and (4 ) recover memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent."
23. In view of the aforeaid discussion, in the absence of any defence brought on record by R1, R2 and unrebutted testimony of PW3 Sh. Arun Kumar who is an eye witness corroborated by criminal proceedings the fact that the offending vehicle hit the deceased prima facie shows rash and negligent conduct of R1. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by R1 Jagmohan due to which deceased Neeraj Kumar suffered fatal injuries. Issue no. 1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2.
24. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
MACT No. 213/2023 12/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
25. In order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability, Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 stated that the owner and driver were not having valid and effective licence and permit for plying their vehicle in Delhi on the date of accident and as per the verification report filed by the IO the owner of the offending vehicle possessed a permit in respect of contract carriage for the state of Haryana only. So, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. In the present case, the owner and driver have also been challaned under Section 66(1)/192A MV Act respectively. Hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
26. As far as licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the IO has specifically mentioned in the charge- sheet that his Driving Licence was duly verified from the concerned authority and found to be valid. However, the permit of the offending vehicle was for the State of Haryana only and hence a challan under Section 66/192A MV Act was also added in the chargesheet. In regard to the objection raised by the insurance company regarding the violation of the permit, as the offending vehicle was being plied in Delhi despite possessing a permit in respect of contract carriage only for Haryana, reference can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in City Water Supplier vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited MAC Appeal 708/2012 as well as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijender Singh, 2012 (130) DRJ 545 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National MACT No. 213/2023 13/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Insurance Company vs. Swarn Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 wherein it was observed as under:-
12. It is legally significant to note the findings of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Swarn Singh 2004 ACJ 1 , wherein it is held as under:
"102. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act."
13. In view of the above dictum in Swarn Singh (Supra), the alleged deviations in the permit are not sufficient to exonerate from the liability. The stipulations in the insurance policy are interpreted on the basis of two concepts: rule of main purpose and fundamental breach. Therefore, there is no willful breach in terms of the insurance policy.
Relying upon the above said judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarn Singh's case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
14. A similar issue came before this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Partap & Ors. MAC. APP. 960/2011. The facts of the case in hand are similar to this case, therefore, keeping in view the decision of this MACT No. 213/2023 14/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Court in the above case; and also the view taken by the Apex Court in Swarn Singh (Supra), non- permit to ply the vehicle in Delhi cannot be the basis for grant of recovery rights because the said failure is not fundamental in nature, whereas it is otherwise, as discussed above.
15. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted recovery rights against the appellant. The liability lies on the insurer, i.e, the Insurance Company, to pay the compensation to the claimants.
27. In the present case also, the permit which has been produced on record shows that it was valid for contract carriage on the date of accident though, its region covered is Haryana only. The driving of the vehicle in Delhi area seems to be route violation by the driver of the vehicle for which he has been challaned. Same however, can not be considered as a fundamental violation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarn Singh's case which could have contributed to the cause of accident. In view of the same, the respondent no. 3/ insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
28. The petitioners have claimed compensation in respect of the fatal injuries sustained to Neeraj Kumar.
29 Let me assess the compensation which the claimants are entitled for under different heads.
30. As observed above, deceased Neeraj Kumar died MACT No. 213/2023 15/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Neeraj Kumar. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
31. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, MACT No. 213/2023 16/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, all the petitioners being wife, son, father and mother are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 160,000/-
[40,000 x 4]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
32. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Neeraj Kumar was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, son, mother and father. As per the aadhar Card, the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '16'.
MACT No. 213/2023 17/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
33. PW-1 Harish Kumar (father of the deceased Neeraj Kumar) deposed that at the time of accident, his son was doing permanent private job as a front office talent in Aloft Aerocity at Assest 5B, Aerocity, New Delhi and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.22,500/- per month. In this regard, he has examined PW2 Sh. Sandeep Ruhal, Aloft Aerocityat Assest 5B, Aerocity, New Delhi and exhibited the appointment letter, increment letter and pay slips as Ex.PW2/2 to Ex.PW2/4 (colly). As per the salary slip of the deceased for the month of Jan 2023, the salary of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.21,016/- per month after deduction of the incentive. The documents produced on behalf of the employer of the deceased are unrebutted. On the basis of the same, I am satisfied that he was working as front office talent in Aloft Aerocity at Assest 5B, Aerocity, New Delhi. The said witness from the company has also stated that they have already paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioners through group insurance cover. However they have not given any other benefit to the family of the deceased ex-gratia or otherwise. The said amount of Rs.3 Lakh is required to be deducted from the total compensation.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.29,422/- (21,016/- + 21,016/- x 40/100). The deceased was married. Therefore, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After MACT No. 213/2023 18/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,614/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,65,888/- (Rs.19,614/- x 12 x 16). I therefore, award Rs.37,65,888/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
35. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners comes as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs.37,65,888/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
[40,000x4(claimants)] = Rs.160,000/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15,000/-
==========
total =Rs.39,55,888/-
Amount received by the petitioners
through Group Insurance Rs.3,00,000/-
==========
Grant total = Rs.36,55,888/-
==========
R E LI EF
36. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.36,55,888/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eighty only) to LRs of the deceased Neeraj Kumar as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization.
-:RELEASE OF AWARD AMOUNT:-
MACT No. 213/2023 19/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Arti Pathania i.e. wife of the deceased)
37. A sum of Rs.22,55,888/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Five Eight Hundred Eighty Eight) along-with interest @ 9% per annum is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
The remaining amount with interest be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2 i.e. Aman Bhardwaj i.e. son of the deceased)
38. A sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 being son of the deceased. The said amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till he attains the age of majority.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 3 i.e. mother of the deceased i.e. Smt. Suman Kumari)
39. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) MACT No. 213/2023 20/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 3 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
The remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 4/Harish Kumar i.e. father of the deceased )
40. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 4. Entire amount be released to him in his saving bank account.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
41. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per MACT No. 213/2023 21/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
annum till realization (for the delayed period).
42. The respondent no.3 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3.
43. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
44. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
45. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
1) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank MACT No. 213/2023 22/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3) No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8) On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9) Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10)The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11)The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12)The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be MACT No. 213/2023 23/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 31. The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
2. The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
3. The Respondent no. 3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
4. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no. 3.
5. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 12.12.2023.
MACT No. 213/2023 24/26Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
FORM IV-A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 12.02.2023
2) Name of the deceased : Neeraj Kumar
3) Age of the deceased : 34 years
4) Occupation of the deceased : Private
5) Income of the deceased : Rs.21,016/- p.m.
6) Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S. Name Age Relation
No.
1 Aarti Pathania 30 years Wife
2 Aman Bhardwaj 4 years son
3 Smt. Suman Kumari 55 years mother
4 Harish Kumar 65 years father
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
5 Income of the deceased (A) Rs.21,016/-
6 Add - Future Prospects (B) Rs.8,406/-
7 Less - Personal expenses of the Rs.9808/-
deceased (C)
8 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.19,614/-
[(A+B)-C = D]
9 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.2,35,368/-
10 Multiplier (E) 16
11 Total loss of dependency Rs.37,65,888/-
(Dx12xE=F)
12 Medical Expenses (G) ---
13 Compensation for loss of Rs.160,000/-
consortium (H)
MACT No. 213/2023 25/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
14 Loss of Love and Affection (I) -
15 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15000/-
16 Compensation towards funeral Rs.15000/-
expenses (K)
17 Amount received by the petitioners Rs.3,00,000/-
through group insurance (L)
18 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.36,55,888/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K -L= M )
19 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
20 Interest amount upto the date of Rs.1,40,751/-
award (M)
21 Total amount including interest Rs.37,96,639/-
(L+M)
22 Award amount released Rs.11,96,639/-
23 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.26,00,000/-
24 Mode of disbursement of the Some amount is released to the award amount to the claimant (s). petitioners and some amounts are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit.
25 Next date for compliance of the 12.12.2023 award Pronounced in the open court on 31st October 2023 (SUDESH KUMAR-II) Presiding Officer : MACT (S) Saket Courts, New Delhi MACT No. 213/2023 26/26