Delhi District Court
Smt.Guddi vs Dharmender on 24 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.:76714 /2016
FIR No.174/2014
PS Beri, Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana
1. Smt.Guddi
(wife of the deceased Hemchander)
2. Baby Anshi
(Minor Daughter of the deceased)
3. Baby Anisha
(Minor Daughter of the deceased)
4. Master Aditya
(Minor Son of the deceased)
5. Smt.Laxmi Devi
(Mother of the deceased)
6. Fateh Singh (since expired)
(Father of the deceased)
All R/o H.No.106, Garhi Panna Mandir Mohalla,
Village, Neelwal,
Delhi
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Dharmender
S/o Iqbal Singh
R/o G466, J.J. Colony,
Bakkarwala,
New Delhi
(Driver)
2. Vijay Kumar
S/o Dayanand
R/o H.No.854/3, VPO Mundka,
near Shiv Om Dharamkanta,
Delhi
(Registered Owner)
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Off - Unit 473, 4th Floor,
Agarwal Cyber PlazaII,
Pitampura, Delhi
(Insurer)
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.11.2014
Date of concluding arguments : 17.01.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award: 24.01.2018 AWARD
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for death of Hemchander in a road vehicular accident. An FIR No.174/2014 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Beri, Distt.Jhajjar, Haryana and chargesheet was filed against Dharmender/Respondent No.1, driver of a TATA 407 tempo bearing registration No.DL1LK5648 (offending vehicle).
2. Certified copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and charge sheet were filed by the petitioners.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition are that at about 12:00 pm on 20.07.2014, when deceased Hemchander along with his niece Preeti was going on his scooter bearing No.HR10C8021, a TATA 407 tempo bearing registration No.DL1LK5648 which was coming from wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of the deceased from front side on a road between Village Barhana and Village Dighal. Consequently, Hemchander and Preeti fell down and Hemchander received fatal injuries. He was removed to CHC, Dighal for treatment, but on the advise of Doctor, he was further removed to PostGraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak where Doctor declared him "brought dead".
4. Subsequently, it transpired that Dharmender/respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending vehicle owned by Vijay Kumar/respondent No.2 and insured with Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.3.
5. No Written Statement was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Co., it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 vide its Policy No.P0014100021/4103/362457 which was valid from 18.03.2014 till 17.03.2015.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor vide order dated 23.02.2015:
1. Whether the deceased Hem Chander suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 20.07.2014 at about 12 pm involving Tata407 bearing No.DL1LK5648 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as court record.
9. My findings on various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Hem Chander suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 20.07.2014 at about 12 pm involving Tata407 bearing No.DL1LK5648 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company? OPP
10. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. In support of her claim Smt.Guddi, wife of deceased Hemchander, examined herself as PW1 and Preeti, an eyewitness and niece of the deceased, as PW2.
12. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), she deposed that her husband met with an accident on 20.07.2014 and was removed to hospital where doctors declared him brought dead. During her cross examination, she testified that she had received a phone call regarding the accident in the evening.
13. Petitioner Smt.Guddi also examined PW2/Preeti, who was an eyewitness to the accident and was travelling as pillion rider on the scooter with deceased on the day of the accident i.e. 20.07.2014. PW2/Preeti, in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW2/A), deposed that at about 12:00 pm on 20.07.2014, she along with her deceased Mama (maternal uncle) was going from Village Neelwal to Village Karontha, Haryana. She was sitting as pillion rider and her deceased Mama was driving the scooter. She further deposed that when they reached near Village Bahrana, one TATA 407 bearing registration No.DL1LK5648 came at a very fast speed from Village Digal side and hit their scooter from the side. Due to the forceful impact, she fell down from the scooter and her Mama Hemchander was dragged with the scooter by the offending vehicle upto some distance. She further stated that due to the said accident, her Mama Hemchander received fatal injuries.
14. In her crossexamination by respondents, PW2/Preeti reiterated the mode and manner of accident and denied that she was not sitting as pillion rider when the accident took place. She also denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Hemchander. She, thus, refused to toe the line of the respondents that she was not the eye witness to the accident.
15. The testimony of PW2/Preeti is credible and reliable. Nothing could be revealed in the crossexamination of PW2/Preeti to doubt her veracity or the fact that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle.
16. Dharmender/Respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle in his evidence examined himself as R1W1. During his crossexamination, he admitted that he was facing trial regarding the said accident in Jhajjar Court and that his driving licence was seized by the police and the offending vehicle i.e. TATA 407 was also impounded by the police.
17. Regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled in KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 ACJ 421 SC, held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a 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 under Section 166 and 140 of the Act.
18. In BASANT KAUR AND ORS. VS. CHATTAR PAL SINGH & ORS., reported as 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident.
19. Further, in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PUSHPA RANA reported as 2009 ACJ, 287, it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
20. In a case titled as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RINKI @ RINKU & ORS. in MAC APP. NO.200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.P. Mittal reiterated the aforesaid view and held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
21. Considering all the facts and circumstances, deposition of PW2/Preeti and the dictum of the aforecited judgments, it is established that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
22. Issue No.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
23. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled for compensation.
24. In Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
25. Though PW1/Guddi, wife of the deceased Hemchander, in her testimony did not place on record any documentary proof to prove the age of the deceased. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), she stated that her deceased husband was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. However, she has placed on record certified copies of criminal proceedings (Ex.PW1/7, colly) which includes the postmortem report of the deceased Hemchander wherein the age of deceased was mentioned as 25 years.
26. The postmortem report was neither disputed nor challenged by the respondents. Hence, taking into account deposition of PW1/Smt.Guddi and postmortem report, age of deceased as on date of the accident is assessed as 25 years.
Income of the deceased
27. It was claimed by PW1/Guddi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that her deceased husband was a labourer and earning Rs.10,000/ per month.
She, however, did not place on record any document to prove the same. Thus, in absence of any evidence, the deceased is considered as unskilled worker on the date of accident i.e. 20.07.2014 and his income is assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Rate of an unskilled worker in Delhi as on date of accident as Rs.8,554/ per month.
Number of Dependants
28. PW1/Smt.Guddi, wife of deceased Hemchander, in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) testified that she and her three minor children and parents of the deceased (petitioner Nos.2 to 6) were dependent on her deceased husband. PW1/Smt.Guddi has also placed on record photocopies of her Voter I/card (Ex.PW1/1) and that of her parentsinlaw (Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively). She has also placed on record Birth Certificates of her children as Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/6 respectively. These documents were neither controverted nor challenged by any respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances, it can be safely inferred that petitioner Nos.1 to 6 being the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased are dependent LRs of the deceased.
29. Therefore, for the purpose of present claim petition, petitioner No.1 to 5 are the surviving dependent LRs of the deceased. Addition in the income towards future prospects
30. This issue was recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category.
59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the selfemployed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty.
But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a selfemployed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance.
The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is selfemployed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time.
Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality.
And, therefore, degreetest is imperative. Unless the degreetest is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degreetest has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years, an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of selfemployed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts."
31. The view expressed in Pranay Sethi (supra) was also followed in a recent judgment of our own High Court in MAC APPEAL NO.798/2011 titled as BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. POOJA & ORS. decided by Hon'ble Justice R.K. Gauba on 02.11.2017.
32. In view of the ratio of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and Pooja & Ors. (supra), an addition of 40% of Rs.8554/ (calculated on the basis of minimum wages rate as on the date of the accident) can be made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased Hemchander. Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased
33. It is not in dispute that deceased Hemchander was married at the time of accident and that he is survived by five surviving LRs i.e. his wife, three minor children and mother. In judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), it was held as follows:
"Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37(2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and onefifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."
Applying the criteria laid down in the aforecited judgments, deduction in the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/4th (onefourth) of his income.
Selection of multiplier
34. As the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of deceased would be 18 (eighteen).
Loss of financial dependency
35. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be:
Rs.8554 + (40% of Rs.8554) x 3/4 x 12 x 18 = 19,40,047.20 (rounded off to Rs.19,40,100/) Thus, total loss of financial dependency is assessed as Rs.19,40,100/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Forty Thousand One Hundred).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
36. In the judgment Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed in RAJESH AND OTHERS VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS REPORTED AS (2013)9 SCC 54 and held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. It also observed as under:
"The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be factcentric or quantumcentric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three year and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years."
37. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) as compensation towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation towards loss of estate. Since the deceased is survived by three minor children, Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) is also granted towards Loss of Love and Affection.
38. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 19,40,100
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000
3 Loss of Estate 15,000
4 Loss of Consortium 40,000
5 Loss of Love and Affection 15,000
TOTAL 20,25,100
39. Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.20,25,100/ (rounded off to Rs.20,25,000/) (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only).
LIABILITY
40. Respondent No.1/Dharmender is liable to pay compensation being the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL1LK5648 as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.2/Vijay Kumar is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being the owner of the offending vehicle.
41. It is a proved case that the offending vehicle was duly insured vide Policy No.P0014100021/4103/362457 which was valid from 18.03.2014 till 17.03.2015 including the date of accident i.e. 20.07.2014. No statutory defence was taken by respondent No.3/Insurance Co. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
RELIEF
42. In view of above findings on Issues No.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.20,25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 24.11.2014 till its realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
Apportionment
43. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name Relationship with Share in the award
deceased amount
1 Guddi Wife 45%
2 Baby Anshi Daughter 15%
3 Baby Anisha Daughter 15%
4 Master Aditya Son 15%
5 Smt.Laxmi Devi Mother 10%
Mode of payment and disbursement
44. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioners under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
45. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioners in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
46. Out of total award amount of Rs.20,25,000/, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only), be released to the petitioners in proportion to their shares mentioned above, immediately in their savings accounts opened in a nationalised bank near their place of residence.
47. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.19,00,000/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs) as per share of money as mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in the following manner in accordance with the order dt. 15.12.2017 passed by HMJ J.R. Midha in SOBAT SINGH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR.:
(i) Rs.8,55,000/ be kept in 18 FDRs of Rs.47,500/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years, two years and so on till 09 years in the name petitioner No.1/Smt.Guddi (wife of the deceased).
(ii) Rs.2,85,000/ be kept in the FDR in the name petitioner No.2/Anshi (Daughter of the deceased) which shall be released to her after three years of her attaining the age of majority.
(iii) Rs.2,85,000/ be kept in the FDR in the name petitioner No.2/Anisha (Daughter of the deceased) which shall be released to her after three years of her attaining the age of majority.
(iv) Rs.2,85,000/ be kept in FDR in the name petitioner No.2/Aditya (Son of the deceased) which shall be released to him after three years of his attaining the age of majority.
(v) Rs.1,90,000/ be kept in 04 FDRs of Rs.47,500/ each for a period of six months, one year, one & a half years and two years in the name petitioner No.5/Smt.Laxmi Devi (Mother of the deceased).
48. The following conditions are imposed with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s).
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned nationalised bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze the debit card(s) of the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement along with their PAN cards before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
49. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
50. Certified Copies of this judgment be sent to DLSA and concerned Learned MM.
51. Form IVA in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in SOBAT SINGH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR. is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
52. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 09.03.2018.
53. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 24th January, 2018 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 20.07.2014
2. Name of the deceased Hemchander
3. Age of the deceased 25 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Unskilled Worker
5. Income of the deceased Rs.8,554/ per month
6. Name , age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
Sl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Smt.Guddi 27 yrs Wife
(ii) Anshi 8 yrs Daughter
(iii) Anisha 5 yrs Daughter
(iv) Aditya 3 yrs Son
(v) Smt.Laxmi Devi 74 yrs Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the
Claim Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) 8,554
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 3,422
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) 2994
10. Monthly loss of dependency 119762994=8982
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) 1,07,784
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) 19,40,112
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) 15,000
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 15,000
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.20,25,000
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.5,77,125/
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.26,02,125/
23. Award amount released Rs.1,25,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.19,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the FDRs
claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 09.03.2018
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi