Delhi District Court
Nazra vs Shyam Masin on 30 November, 2023
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 1 of 50
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 49393-2016
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW01-000203-2013
1. Smt. Nazra W/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
2. Sh. Mohd. Mohsin S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
3. Baby Rubina D/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
4. Master Shaukin S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
5. Master Taufik S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
6. Master Tehsil S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
7. Master Khurshed S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
8. Master Azam S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
9. Master Umar S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
10. Master Abdullah S/o Late Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani
(Petitioner No.3 to 10 being minors are represented through their
mother (petitioner No.1) being natural guardian and next friend)
All R/o H.No. 20, D-4, Nithari, Sultan Puri,
Delhi-110041.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Shyam Masih S/o Sh. Iqbal Masih,
R/o Village Rukha Tehsil Ajnala,
District Amritsar, Punjab.
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
R/o V.&.P.O. Ajnala, Mohalla Gopal Nagar,
Ward No.1, District Amritsar, Punjab.
.......Owner/R2
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 1 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 2 of 50
3. United India Insurance Company Limited,
8th Floor, Kanchanjung Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
.......Insurance/R3
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.09.2013
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 17.09.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2023
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 17.07.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the This is claim petition
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the This is claim petition
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 This is claim petition
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information This is claim petition
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer
before Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance This is claim petition
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). This is claim petition
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? This is claim petition
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR This is claim petition
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 2 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 3 of 50
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents This is claim petition
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on This is claim petition
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 28.01.2014
by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. counsel for the
insurance co.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No.
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer
of the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on This is claim petition
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer 02.01.2017
of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 30.11.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 05.04.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 3 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 4 of 50
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 07.02.202
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Smt. Nazra, savings
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with bank a/c
IFSC Code No.19032122008800
, Rubina, savings
bank a/c No.
19032421000039,
Mohsin, saving bank
a/c no.
19032421000046,
Shokin, saving bank
a/c no.
19032122008731,
Taufiq, saving bank
a/c no.
19032421000060,
Tehsil, saving bank
a/c no.
1903242000053,
Khurshid, saving
bank a/c no.
19032122008824,
Abdullah, saving
bank a/c no.
19032122008793,
Umar, saving bank
a/c no.
19032122008786
and Mohd. Azam,
saving bank a/c no.
19032122008817
with Oriental Bank
of Commerce,
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 4 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 5 of 50
Sultanpur Mazra
Branch, Delhi.
IFSC :
ORBC0101903.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 41065170303,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is SBIN0010323, SBI,
to be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a claim petition preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') on 24.09.2013 for seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) along with interest @ 12% per annum in respect of death of victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani S/o Late Munna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicular accident.
2. A perusal of court record reveals that in the present case, an FIR bearing No.165/2013 was also registered at PS Julana, Jind, Haryana in respect of the commission of offences of causing hurt and death not amounting to culpable homicide by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road as well as for the commission of offence of Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 5 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 6 of 50 mischief by causing damage to private property having value of more than Rs. 50/- punishable U/s 279/337/304A and 427 IPC, wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of offences of causing death not amounting to culpable homicide of Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani, Mohd. Wajid @ Mohd. Vazid, Mohd. Wasim, Murli and Mohd. Ayub, and causing grievous injuries to Mohd. Shanu @ Dilshad, Mohd. Sajid, Mohd. Sammar and Mohd. Khurshid by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road as well as for the commission of offence of mischief by causing damage to private property having value of more than rupees fifty (Rs.50/-) punishable U/s 279/337/304A/427 IPC was filed against one Shyam Masih.
3. The brief facts of the case from the prospectives of legal heirs/legal representatives of deceased Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani (hereinafter referred to as the LR's of deceased/petitioners/claimants) are that on 17.07.2013, the victim/deceased, namely, Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani along with Mohd. Wajid, Sahadat S/o Mohd. Yunus, Mohd. Arif, Farjani, Mohd. Wasim, Mohd. Shahnu, Murli, Ayub, Anish and other persons were travelling in Tata 709 bearing registration No. HR63-9970 from Delhi to Jind and at about 3:30 am, upon reaching at petrol pump of PS Julana, another loaded carrier make Tata LPT 909 bearing registration number PB02BV 7751(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver Shyam Masih (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1) at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner was coming from the front side whereas a Santro Car was lying parked in front of the vehicle of the victim, however, when the driver of the vehicle of the victim had tried to save the said Santro Car, the offending Tata LPT 909 had Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 6 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 7 of 50 forcefully hit the Tata 709 of victims from side due to which the body of the truck of the victims had got detached from its cabin and had fell at some distance away from its cabin thereby causing injuries to all the passengers travelling therein. It is the case of the petitioners that as a consequence of injuries sustained in the case accident victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani had expired.
4. The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jai Kumar Mann, Medical Officer, Jind Hospital, Haryana vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No. PMR/JK/2013/25 dated 17.07.2013 wherein the cause of death had been opined as shock and maemorrhage due to injury to vital organ, that is, brain. Besides, as per the report of the autopsy surgeon, the injuries detected on the body of the deceased were antemortem in nature, that is, appeared to have been sustained by the victim immediately prior to his death and could have been caused by blunt object or force.
5. R1/Shyam Masih S/o Sh. Iqbal Masih, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, who was the owner of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2/R2) had not filed their written statement despite sufficient opportunities having been granted to them in this regard. Besides, R1 and R2 had failed to appear in the court on several dates of hearing and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2018.
6. United India Insurance Company Limited/R3, the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as Respondent no. 3/R3) had filed Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 7 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 8 of 50 its written statement claiming therein that R3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners in case the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was found to be not holding any valid and effective driving licence or in case it was found during the investigation that there was no valid and effective permit as well as fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. Besides, R3 had sought liberty to claim all defences available to it U/s 149 (2) of the M.V. Act and to contest the present matter U/s 170 of said act in case driver and owner of the offending vehicle were either found to be in collusion with the petitioners or they would otherwise abstain from contesting the present matter.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 02.01.2017:-
(1) Whether on 17.07.2013 at about 3:30 am, near HP Petrol Pump, Budha Khera, Julana, District Jind, Haryana, one truck bearing registration No.PB02-BV-7751, which was being driven rash and negligently by Shyam Masih and hit the vehicle bearing registration No.HR63-9970 and caused the death of Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
8. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioners/LRs of the deceased had examined only one witness, namely, Smt. Nazra as PW1 in support of their version of the case.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 8 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 9 of 50 No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
8.1 A perusal of the court record reveals that R1 and R2 had not examined any witness in support of their respecteive versions of the case. Even otherwise, they had been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2018.
8.2 United India Insurance Company Limited/R3 had examined three witnesses in support of its version of the case. Sh. Anil Kumar, Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, 8th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi had been examined as R3W1, Sh. Sukhkiran Singh Toor S/o Sh. Jagapl Singh, Supervisor from the office of Licensing Authority Cum-Tehsildar, Moga, Punjab had been examined as R3W2 and Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Jr. Assistant Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Amritsar had been examined as R3W3 by the insurance company/R3. No other witness had been examined by the insurance company/R3 in support of its case.
9. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Anoop Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/R3. None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 for addressing final arguments. Even otherwise, R1 and R2 had already been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2018. My issue-wise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
10. Issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUES No. 1Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 9 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 10 of 50 (1) Whether on 17.07.2013 at about 3:30 am, near HP Petrol Pump, Budha Khera, Julana, District Jind, Haryana, one truck bearing registration No.PB02-BV-7751, which was being driven rash and negligently by Shyam Masih and hit the vehicle bearing registration No.HR63-9970 and caused the death of Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani? OPP The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/ claimants.
10.1 The petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had examined one witness in support of their version of the case. Smt. Nazra, wife of the deceased had been examined as PW1. No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
10.2 Petitioners/claimants had examined PW1 Smt. Nazra by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein she had reiterated the facts narrated in the claim petition by deposing that on 17.07.2013 while travelling from Delhi to Jind, Haryana in Tata 709 bearing registration No. HR63-9970 her husband Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani had met with an accident at about 3:30 am, when the said vehicle had reached near HP Petrol Pump at Budha Khera, Julana, Haryana, where another truck make LPT 909 bearing registration No.PB02-GB-7751 coming from front side being driven by its driver at a very high speed had hit the vehicle of her husband with great force due to which five occupants of the vehicle of her husband including her husband had suffered fatal injuries, whereas four other persons had sustained grievous injuries and all victims of the case accident were removed for treatment of injuries sustained in the case accident to Pandit B.B. Sharma, Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 10 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 11 of 50 Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as PGIMS), Rohtak, Haryana. She stated that her husband Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani was aged about 48 years and was working as a labourer for income to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. She stated that her husband had left behind ten legal heirs including herself and her children, namely, Mohd. Mohsin aged about 22 years, Rubina aged about 21 years, Shaukin aged about 17 years, Taufik aged about 15 years, Tehsil aged about 13 years, Khurshed aged about 12 years, Azam aged about 10 years, Umar aged about 7 years, and Abdullah aged about 6 years. She stated that all the petitioners were solely and fully dependent upon the income of the deceased and had thus suffered irreparable financial loss due to untimely death of the deceased on account of the case accident. She relied upon the following documents in support of her testimony:-
1. Copy of death certificate of deceased Mohd. Ramjani Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mausin Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of Rubina Ex.PW1/3.
4. Copy of Aadhar Card of Shokin Ex.PW1/4.
5. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mohd. Taufik Ex.PW1/5.
6. Copy of Aadhar Card of Tehseel Ex.PW1/6.
7. Copy of Aadhar Card of Khurshid Ex.PW1/7.
8. Copy of Aadhar Card of Moh.d Azam Ex.PW1/8.
9. Copy of Aadhar Card of Umar Ex.PW1/9.
10. Copy of Aadhar Card of Abdulla Ex.PW1/10.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 11 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 12 of 50 10.3 In her cross-examination by Sh. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for insurance company/R3, PW1 deposed that she was not an eye witness to the occurrence of the case accident. She denied the suggestion that no such accident had taken place with the vehicle bearing registration No.PB02-BV-
7751 or that the said vehicle had been falsely implicated in the present case.
She stated that her all children were unmarried. She also stated that her eldest child, namely, Mausin was more than 18 years of age and he was a working and earning person. She denied the suggestion that the petitioners were not financially dependent upon the deceased. She expressed her inability to recall the date of birth of her deceased husband. She stated that her parents-in-law had pre-deceased her deceased husband. She expressed her inability to recall as to how much elder the deceased was to her. She, however, clarified that the deceased was elder to her. She stated that deceased was married with her about 25 years ago and at the time of their marriage, she was aged about 15-16 years whereas the age of the deceased was about 18-20 years. She stated that she had no written evidence to show that the deceased was employed or that he was earning any amount as on the date of accident. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of accident. During the course of recording of her deposition PW1 Nazra produced the election identity card of her deceased husband, a copy of which was proved on court record as Ex.PW1/R3X. She admitted that as per the election identity card, the age of the deceased was more than 50 years as on the date of accident. She denied the suggestion that her claim was false. She further denied the suggestion that she had not incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- on Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 12 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 13 of 50 the transportation and last rites of the deceased.
10.4 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to cross-examine PW1. Accordingly, the cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them for cross- examining PW1.
10.5 R1 and R2 had chosen not to lead any evidence in support of their case, whereas R3/insurance company had examined three witnesses in support of its version of the case.
10.6 Sh. Anil Kumar, Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited having office at 8th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, had been examined as R3W1 by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A, wherein he had reiterated the defence of the insurance company to the effect that despite service of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC upon R1 and R2, R1 and R2 had failed to produce valid and effective driving licence of R1. In this context, it had been submitted by R3W1 that driving licence No.36254 purportedly issued by Licensing Authority, Amritsar, Punjab in favour of Shyam Masih was found to be fake, whereas another driving licence of R1 bearing D.L No.58495/REN purportedly issued in favour of R1 Shyam Masih by Licensing Authority, Moga, Punjab was also found to be fake during the investigation conducted by the insurance company. It had been further averred in the evidence by way of affidavit of R3W1 that the third driving licence of Shyam Masih bearing D.L No.46774/PROF/2010 purportedly issued by Licencing Authority Phek, Nagaland was null and void as the same had not been got converted from a Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 13 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 14 of 50 manual driving licence to a smart card or digital driving licence by R1/Shyam Masih in violation of circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland bearing No.TC-23/MV/2007(PT-I)). He relied upon the following documents in support of his testimony:-
1. Copy of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1.
2. Postal receipts of dispatch of Notice U/o XII Rule 8 of CPC to the addresses of R1 and R2 through registered post Ex.R3W1/2 & Ex.R3W1/3.
3. Copy of acknowledgement card in respect of delivery of abovementioned notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC at the address of R2 Ex.R3W1/4.
4. Copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle Ex.R3W1/4A.
5. Certified copy of D.L of R1, issued by Licencing Authority, Amritsar Ex.R3W1/5.
6. Verification report regarding fake nature of above mentioned D.L of R1, issued by Licensing Authority, Amritsar Ex.R3W1/6.
7. Own damage claim form submitted by the insured/R2 Sukhdev Singh Ex.R3W1/7.
8. Verification report issued by Licensing Authority Moga, in respect of fake nature of driving licence No.58495 allegedly issued in favour of R1/Shyam Masih by the said driving licence authority, Moga Ex.R3W1/8.
9. Verification report received from District Transport Office, Phek, Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 14 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 15 of 50 Nagaland regarding authenticity of driving licence no.46774/PK/Prof/2010 stating therein that the above said licence number had been nullified due to failure of the licence holder to get the said manual driving licence converted into a smart card in violation of circular No.TC-23/MV/2007/PT-I), issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland Ex.R3W1/9.
10. Documents pertaining to vigilance inquiry conducted regarding various driving licences of R1 by officials of the insurance company Ex.R3W1/10.
10.7 In his cross-examination by Sh. Anoop Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, R3W1 had admitted that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid as on the date of occurrence of the case accident.
10.8 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to cross-examine R3W1.
Accordingly, cross examination of R3W1 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine R3W1. Even otherwise, R1 and R2 were already exparte vide order dated 15.03.2018.
10.9 R3W2 Sukhkiran Singh Toor S/o Sh. Jagpal Singh, Supervisor from the office of Licensing Authority-cum-Tehsildar, Moga, Punjab deposed that they had so far not even issued licence No.58495 and the last licence number issued by the said authority was 6072. On being confronted with a copy of driving licence No.58495/REN mark R3W2/X1, R3W2 reiterated that the said licence had never been issued from Licensing Authority, Moga, Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 15 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 16 of 50 Punjab.
10.10 Sh. Anoop Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners had not availed the opportunity given to him by the court to cross-examine R3W2.
10.11 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to cross-examine R3W2. Accordingly, the cross-examination of R3W2 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them for cross- examining R3W2.
10.12 R3W3 Sh. Gurdev Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Jr. Assistant, Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Amritsar had produced the summoned record pertaining to driving licence No.36254 and had clarified that the said driving licence had been issued from their office only once in favour of one Mukesh S/o Sh. Bamchauder having its validity period commencing from 26.07.2005 and expiring on 25.07.2008 for LTV. He proved the same on record as Ex.R3W3/1. After perusing the certified copy of driving licence Ex.R3W1/5, R3W3 stated that the said driving licence was fake and no such licence had been issued by his office in the name of Shyam Masih.
10.13 Sh. Anoop Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners had not availed the opportunity given to him by the court to cross-examine R3W3.
10.14 None had appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 to cross-examine R3W3. Accordingly, the cross-examination of R3W3 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them for cross- examining R3W3. Even otherwise, R1 and R2 had already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2018.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 16 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 17 of 50
10.15 No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the
cross examination of PW1 Nazra to discredit her above said testimony which was capable of demolishing the case of the petitioners to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the death of victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Rajani had occasioned therefrom. However, PW1 Nazra was neither an eye witness to the case accident nor she was present at the spot of occurrence and therefore her testimony regarding the factum of negligence of R1 is hearsay. As such, it is a defence of the insurance company that the petitioners have failed to prove their case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities because they have not examined any eye witness in the present case.
10.16 It is unfortunate that eyewitnesses Mohd. Shahdat S/o Mohd. Yunus, Dilshad @ Sonu S/o Mohd. Ibrahim and Tosif S/o Rafiq Ahmad have never stepped into the witness box on account of the fact that they were never summoned by the petitioners to prove their version of the case. Nevertheless, statements of these three eye witnesses, namely, Mohd. Shahdat S/o Mohd. Yunus, Dilshad @ Sonu S/o Mohd. Ibrahim, Tosif S/o Rafiq Ahmad recorded by the IO under the provisions of Section 161 Cr. PC are part of the criminal case record wherein they had categorically stated that on 17.07.2013 they were travelling in Tata 709 bearing registration No.HR63-9970 from Delhi to Jind, Haryana for the purpose of fishing being fishermen by profession and at about 3:30 am, upon reaching near HP Petrol Pump, Budha Khera, Julana, Jind, Haryana, their vehicle had been hit from side by another vehicle bearing registration No.PB02-BV-7751, which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed by R1 as a Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 17 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 18 of 50 consequence of which the body of their Tata 709 had got detached from its cabin and had fell down at some distance from the cabin, thereby causing death of five persons and injuries to remaining four persons travelling in their Tata 709. Even otherwise, one eye witness, namely, Dilshad S/o Mohd. Ibrahim had stepped into the witness box as a victim-cum-eye witness in his own case titled as Dilshad Vs. Shyam Masih, wherein he had categorically deposed regarding occurrence of the case accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Unfortunately, the said case has been dismissed as withdrawn upon statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner. Nevertheless, the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of victim Dilshad as well as statements of other eye witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC are important pieces of evidence for corroboration of the case of the petitioners in the present matter.
10.17 It is trite law that in Motor Accident Claims Cases the standard of proof is not as strict as the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal matters and non examination of eye witnesses before the Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal in a claim for compensation in respect of road traffic accident particularly when an eye witness had been examined by the IO during investigation and his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC is available on court record. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a benevolent legal entity created for the benefit of victims of road traffic accident and the evidence brought on record before the said tribunal by the accident victims or their legal heirs has to be evaluated on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the scale of beyond reasonable doubt.
10.18 In the context, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 18 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 19 of 50 case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 166/2019, date of decision 14.02.2019 that non examination of eye witness in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioners particularly when there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had inter alia held as follows:-
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
10.19 It was further held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case of Sunita (Supra) as under:-
" Similarly the issue of non examination of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, would not be fatal to the case of the appellants. The approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This court, in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), faced a similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eye witness was discarded by the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 19 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 20 of 50 Tribunal and the respondent was acquitted in criminal case concerning the accident. This court, however, took the view that the material on record was prima facie sufficient to establish that the respondent was negligent. In the present case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the identity of the parties involved in the accident."
10.20 Similar observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Dayal Singh and Ors MACT Appeal No. 419/2010 decided on 7th March, 2013 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had upheld the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal based on police record and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. made by the eye witness. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 15 of the judgement are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced below:-
"15 In view of the above position, while relying upon the police record and the statement of Surender Pal Singh recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that an Eicher Truck bearing No.DL1M 1098, the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. Resultantly, the claimants/ respondents had proved the negligence on the part of the driver."
10.21 It was similarly held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Pushpa Rana and Ors. MAC App. No.360/2007 decided on 20.12.2007 that the certified copy Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 20 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 21 of 50 of criminal case record including charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, certified copy of FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle relied upon by the petitioners were sufficient proofs to arrive at a conclusion regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle because the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act were not akin to a civil suit and as such strict rules of evidence were not supposed to be followed in such proceedings. Relevant extract of observations made in the said judgement is reproduced as under:-
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (I) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 21 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 22 of 50
10.22 In another case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled
as New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. MACT App. No.550/2011 decided on 2 nd July, 2012 it had been similarly reiterated that negligence was not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a MACT case and a certified copy of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. supported by the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle were sufficient to depict the manner in which the accident in question had occurred. Relevant extract of observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Sakshi Bhutani is reproduced herein below:-
"Admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the accident. Possibly she could not have deposed as to the manner of the accident. At the same time, she placed on record the certified copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., copy of the FIR, copy of the site plan, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo of the driver, etc. Mere filing of a criminal case may not necessarily be proof of negligence on the part of the person accused of an offence. However, while dealing with a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts are required to analyse the evidence produced as proof of negligence. Admittedly, negligence is not required to be established beyond reasonable doubt as is expected to be done in a criminal trial. A certified copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. depicted the manner of the accident which was supported by the mechanical inspection report in respect of offending vehicle No.HR-47D-3785 and Scooty No.HR-51-AB-7654."
10.23 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 22 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 23 of 50 Corporation, (Supra), as well as the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Dayal Singh Ors (Supra), National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shri Mati Pushpa Rana and Ors. (Supra), New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. (Supra), it can be safely concluded that the proceedings before the MACT cannot be rejected merely on account of non examination of eye witness by the petitioner and even if the eye witness turns hostile in a connected criminal case resulting in the passing of a judgment of acquittal in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle then also the MACT can arrive at a finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioner. Moreover, statement of any eye witness recorded during investigation by the police officials under the provisions of Section 161 Cr. PC can also be used for corroboration of other evidence led by the petitioners in support of their version of the case.
10.24 In the present case, three eye witnesses, namely, Mohd. Shahdat S/o Mohd. Yunus, Dilshad @ Sonu S/o Mohd. Ibrahim, Tosif S/o Rafiq Ahmad were examined by the IO during investigation and their statements U/s 161 Cr. PC are part of the criminal case record wherein they had categorically stated that on 17.07.2013 they were travelling in Tata 709 bearing registration No.HR63-9970 from Delhi to Jind, Haryana for the purpose of fishing being fishermen by profession and at about 3:30 am, upon reaching near HP Petrol Pump, Budha Khera, Julana, Jind, Haryana, their vehicle had been hit by another LPT truck bearing registration No.PB02-BV-7751, which was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed by R1 as Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 23 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 24 of 50 a consequence of which the body of their Tata 709 had got detached from its cabin and had fell down at some distance from the cabin thereby causing death of five persons and injuries to remaining four persons travelling in their Tata 709. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the statements made by the above named three eye witnesses during the course of investigation are crucial pieces of evidence for corroboration of the case of the petitioners in the present matter. The said statements of the eye witnesses read with the criminal case record relied upon by the petitioners, including the charge sheet filed in FIR No.165/17 registered at PS Julana for the commission of offences punishable U/s 279/337/427/304A of IPC against R1 in the Criminal Court can also be relied upon by this court for the purpose of corroboration of other evidence led by the petitioners in support of their version of the case. Also, the statement of eye witnesses Mohd. Shahdat S/o Mohd. Yunus, Dilshad @ Sonu S/o Mohd. Ibrahim, Tosif S/o Rafiq Ahmad recorded under the provision of Section 161 Cr. PC by the IO during the course of investigation can be used to lend credence to the petitioners version of the case and can thus lead this Tribunal to a finding to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. In such circumstances, there is sufficient material on record in the charge sheet to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and negligence on the part of R1 Shyam Masih in the case accident.
10.25 The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Jai Kumar Mann, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jind, Haryana vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No. PMR/JK/2013/25 dated 17.07.2013 wherein the cause of death had been opined as shock and maemorrhage due to injury Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 24 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 25 of 50 to vital organ brain. Besides, as per the report of the autopsy surgeon, the injuries detected on the body of the deceased were antemortem in nature, that is, appeared to have been sustained by the victim immediately prior to his death and could have been caused by blunt object or force.
10.26 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record including charge sheet filed against R1, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1 who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the above said date, time and place and had hit the same against the Tata 709 of the victim and thereby causing the death of victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
11. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 11.1 In view of my findings on issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of demise of victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani in the above mentioned road traffic accident, I shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 25 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 26 of 50 11.2 Petitioners have examined only one witness in support of their version of the case, namely, PW1 Smt. Nazra, wife of the deceased who had stated that the deceased was 48 years of age at the time of his demise and was survived by ten legal heirs including herself, her nine children. She further deposed that the deceased was working as a labourer and earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month.
11.3 Although, the wife of the deceased had made a categoric deposition regarding the nature of employment of the deceased and his monthly income by stating that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month through his private employment as a labourer. However, she has admitted in her cross- examination by learned counsel for insurance company that she had not filed on record any documentary proof regarding income of her deceased husband. Besides, she had not filed any income proof of her deceased husband including ITR or statement of bank account of her deceased husband reflecting credit of salary therein as a labourer. 11.4 Moreover, the petitioners had also not filed any proof of educational qualification or skill training, if any, acquired by the deceased during his life time, so as to facilitate a finding from this court regarding the earning capacity of the deceased on the basis of his educational attainment. Therefore, the deceased can at best be deemed to be entitled to minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer or workman. 11.5 As per the petition filed by the petitioners, the deceased was a resident of H.No.95A, Afganan, Najibabad, Bijanaur, U.P. In such circumstances, the income of the deceased has to be determined in accordance with the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the Uttar Pradesh as on Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 26 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 27 of 50 the date of occurrence of the case accident, that is, on 17.07.2013 which comes to Rs.191.38/- per day which comes to Rs.5,741.4/-. Accordingly, income of the deceased is determined to be Rs.5,741.4/- per month.
12. Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made 12.1 In this regard, reference should be made to the Constitutional Bench Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
12.2 In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia held as under:-
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 27 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 28 of 50 tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 12.3 In the case in hand, the deceased was self-employed and in terms of above said judgement, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
12.4 In the present case, as discussed above, the age of the deceased as per his Election Identity Card already placed on record was 32 years on 01.01.1995 and the accident in question had occurred on 17.07.2013. Therefore, the age of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of the accident in question was 50 years, 06 months and 16 days at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgement in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to addition of 10 % as future prospects to his established income as he was above the age of 50 years but below the age of 60 years at the time of his death.
12.5 The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs.6,315.54/- (monthly income of Rs.5,741.4/- + 10% of monthly income Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 28 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 29 of 50 i.e Rs.574.14/- = Rs.6,315.54/-) after addition of future prospects.
13. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
13.1 At the time of his demise, victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani was survived by ten legal heirs including his wife and nine children. There is no material on record to arrive at a finding to the effect that either wife of the deceased or his children were gainfully employed or were not dependent on the income of the deceased for their financial needs at the time of occurrence of the case accident. Thus, as such it can be safely concluded that the deceased was survived by ten legal heirs all of whom were financially dependent on the deceased.
13.2 As already discussed above, the deceased was survived ten legal heirs and he had a primary duty to provide maintenance to all his legal heirs.
Therefore, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008, date of judgment 15.04.2009 as upheld in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased was likely to spend 1/5th of his income on his personal and living expenses and to contribute rest of the 4/5th of his income for his household expenses. Accordingly, ¼ th of income of the deceased is supposed to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
14. Selection of multiplier:
14.1 As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 50 years 06 months and 16 days at the time of his death. In the said circumstances, the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 29 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 30 of 50 relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 13 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a deceased victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 46 to 50 years whereas the multiplier of 11 is to be applied for a deceased victim of Motor Vehicular Accident aged between 51 to 55 years. However, in the present case, the victim Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani was more than 50 years of age but had not yet attained the age of 51 and therefore, the multiplier applicable to the case of victim has to be computed in terms of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Neelam & Ors, MAC.APP No.613/2012 decided on 26.11.2015 wherein the petitioner had similarly not completed the age of 41 years but was more than 40 years old at the time his demise. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that if the petitioner had completed the age of 41 years as on the date of accident or demise, then, the relevant multiplier applicable to his case would be '14' which is applicable in cases where the accident victims are aged between 41 to 45 years. However, since the petitioner was 50 years and a few months old, therefore, the petitioner had not yet attained the age of 51 and was entitled to compensation to be computed by taking the multiplier of '13' applicable for accident victims aged between 46-50 years. Relevant extract of observation made in para-20 of the judgment is reproduced below in this context:
"As per the service book, the date of birth of the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 30 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 31 of 50 deceased HC Shri Bhagwan is 30.01.1970. He suffered injuries on 01.11.2010 and succumbed to those injuries on 08.11.2010. Thus, at the time of his death, he had not completed 41 years. The deceased HC Shri Bhagwan has left behind six dependents and as per Sarla Verma's case (Supra), deduction for personal and living expenses could be 1/4th, which has been done by the Tribunal and the multiplier to be applied, if the age of the deceased is between 36 to 40 years is '15'. If the age of the deceased is between 41 to 45 years, the multiplier applicable will be '14'. Here in this case, the deceased had not attained the age of 41 years at the time of his death, hence the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of '15'."
14.2 In two cross appeals decided by a common judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Archana Devi and Others, MAC Appeal No.306/2013 and Archana Devi and Others vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, MAC Appeal No.618/2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had upheld the application of multiplier of 17 in case of a victim who was over 30 years of age but less than 31 years of age as on the date of occurrence of the accident in question. Relevant extract of observations made in paras 4 and 7 in the said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"4. The tribunal found that the date of birth of the deceased was 25.07.1980 and thus concluded that he was over 30 years but less than 31 years on the date of the accident and on which basis adopted the multiplier of 17. It calculated the notional income by adding 30% as the element of future prospects of increase and on such basis computed the loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.30,88,484/-. It added the non-pecuniary damages in the total sum of Rs.1,30,000/- and thus awarded Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 31 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 32 of 50 Rs.32,18,484/- as the total compensation payable with interest.
7. Thus, the loss of dependency is recalculated with addition of 50% of future prospects considered. The total income in this view would be (1,86,334 x 150 divided by 100) Rs.2,79,501/-. Deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, inasmuch as the deceased was survived by five dependent family members, the loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.2,79,501 x 3 divided by 4) Rs.2,09,626/-. On the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to (2,09,626 x 17) Rs.35,63,642/-. This would mean the compensation needs to be enhanced by (35,63,642-30,88,484) Rs.4,75,158/-."
14.3 In the light of aforecited observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Neelam & Ors (supra), Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Archana Devi and Others(supra) and Archana Devi and Others vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, it can be safely concluded that when deceased Ramzani @ Mohd. Ramjani has completed the age of 50 years but has not yet attained the age of 51 years, then, the multiplier applicable to the case of deceased would be that of 13 which has been prescribed for the age group of 46-50 years by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation(supra).
15. Loss of financial dependency 15.1 In the light of afore cited facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.7,88,179.39/- [i.e. Rs.6,315.54/- (per month income of the deceased) X12 X13 (multiplier) X 4/5 (dependency after deducting Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 32 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 33 of 50 1/5th of income towards personal and living expenses)].
16. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads/conventional heads:
16.1 In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to the estate of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
17. Consortium {Spousal Consortium/Parental Consortium/Filial Consortium}
17.1 The deceased was married and the petitioners/claimants are his wife and nine children. It is now a settled law in terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, date of decision 18.09.2018: 2018(8) SCJ 338:2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Uttrakhand Transport Corporation Vs. Jyoti Sardana, MAC.APP.920/2017, date of decision 03.04.2019 that the compensation under the head of consortium is required to be awarded to all the claimants to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- each. As already discussed above, in the present case, there were ten legal heirs of the deceased at the time of his demise. Accordingly, all the ten surviving legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the head of consortium, hence, Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 10) is being granted under the said head. My views in this regard are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Manorama Aggarawal and Ors., MAC.APP. 250/2015, decided on 09.01.2020 and Om Prakash and Ors vs Ved Prakash and Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 33 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 34 of 50 Anr, MAC.APP 114/2019 date of decision 28.01.2020. My views are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410.
18. LOSS OF LOVE and AFFECTION 18.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the latest case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093-3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 after referring to its another decision of three-judge bench in case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410 inter alia held as follows :
"34. The Three-Judge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the expression 'consortium' to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Three-Judge Bench however further laid down that 'loss of love and affection' is comprehended in 'loss of consortium', hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' as a separate head.
35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' which have been now further reiterated by three- Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head 'loss Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 34 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 35 of 50 of love and affection'.
................................................................................... ................................................................................... ...................................................................................
47. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed.
The award of compensation under the conventional head 'loss of love and affection' is set aside........................"
18.2 In view of the abovesaid discussion and the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3093- 3099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410, no amount of compensation can be awarded under the said head of 'loss of love and affection'. Hence, no amount is being granted under the said head.
19. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 7,88,179.39
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 4,00,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
Total Rs. 12,18,179.39/-
________________
[Rounded off to Rs.12,18,180/-]
(Rupees Twelve Lacs Eighteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty Only). 19.1 In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 35 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 36 of 50 Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 24.09.2013 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 24.09.2013 till realisation of the compensation amount.
19.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
20. Liability 20.1 It is the defence of the insurance company that R1 Shyam Masih had produced three driving licences out of which two licences including one issued by Licensing Authority, Amritsar and another issued by Licencing Authority at Moga, Punjab were found to be fake during the investigation of the present case, whereas the third licence issued by Licensing Authority/Phek, Nagaland was although genuine, however, the same was a manual licence issued by the said authority and the respondent no.1 had failed to get the said manual licence converted into a digital or smart card licence from the concerned licensing authority at Phek, Nagaland in terms of circular No. TC-23/MV/2007(PT-I) dated 01.08.2014 issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland and therefore the licence of R1/Shyam Masih, Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 36 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 37 of 50 issued by the said Motor Licencing Authority, Nagaland had to be treated as cancelled and nullified as per the report received from the District Transport Officer, Phek, Nagaland Ex.R3W1/9.
20.2 Similar issue had come up for consideration before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chetna and Ors. CR No.2566/18 decided on 23.05.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had treated the licence of R1/driver of the offending vehicle as genuine and valid despite the fact that he had failed to get the same converted into a digital or smart card licence in violation of letter dated 01.08.2014, issued by Government of Nagaland Motor Vehicles Department, Office of Transport Commissioner Kohima, Nagaland and had observed that with a motive to verify to authenticity of the all driving licences purportedly issued by various Motor Licensing Authorities in Nagaland, the Government of Nagaland had called upon all driving licence holders having the paper based or manual driving licences other than in smart card form to visit the offices of their respective issuing authorities for the purpose of digitalisation of the same and R1 had failed to comply with the directions given in the said letter. Nevertheless, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had observed that the accident in question had taken place on 29.11.2013, whereas the circular regarding digitization had been issued vide letter dated 01.08.2014 much after the occurrence of the case accident. Therefore, the factual position was that the licence of R1 was genuine as on the date of occurrence of the case accident and as such no ground was made out for treating the said licence as fake or forged. Observations made in paras no.9 and 10 of the judgement Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 37 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 38 of 50 passed in this case are noteworthy in this context are reproduced hereinbelow:-
9. It appears that State of Nagaland has issued some notification about the digitalization of their record and the Driving Licenses which are not found on the ditized Smart Card Sarathi have been treated as cancelled and invalid. In this regard other than Smart Card the record has been treated as cancelled. The operating part of letter dated 1.8.14 of Government of Nagaland, Motor Vehicles Department, Office of the Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland is as under:-
2 of 4 "With a view to authenticate the genuine Driving Licenses it is hereby notified that all Driving License holders having the Booklet or on any manual formats other than Smart Card must report to the office where they have been issued for the purpose of digitizing their data and subsequent issue in Smart Card format.
This must be completed before 1st December 2014 after which Driving Licenses other than Smart Card shall be treated as cancelled. This is issued in the interest of public safety and in exercise of the authority conferred under section 19(1)(e) of the M.V. Act, 1988."
10. In the instant case from the case file, it is revealed that the accident has taken place on 29.11.2013, therefore, we are to see the position as it stood on that day and not what is the position prevailing at present. Moreover, report about authenticity of driving licence is already available in case file, so, findings no merits in the application, the same stands dismissed."
Ex facie, all what the letter dated 01.08.2014 postulates is; that all the driving license holders Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 38 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 39 of 50 having the booklet or any manual formats other than the Smart Card must report to the office where they have been issued for the purpose of digitizing their data and subsequent issue in Smart Card format. Further, the exercise must be completed before 01.12.2014, 3 of 4 whereafter the driving licence other than Smart Card shall be treated as cancelled. What needs to be borne in mind is that the accident had taken place on 29.11.2013, therefore, the question would be; whether the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence or not?
Significantly, the letter (Ex.R3), issued by the same licensing authority, in response to RTI raised by Shri Mehtab Singh Poonia, counsel for the driver of the offending vehicle (Ex.R3), rather reveals that authorities had verified his licence, which was found to be genuine as per the office record. Further, the RTI was raised by Shri SK Saini, Advocate in the year 2015, and now when the matter was posted for recording of respondents' evidence, the application was moved for appointment of a Commission, which evidently lacked both i.e. merits as also the bonafides.
That being so, no ground is made out to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
20.3 Similar opinion was expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in another decided case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti & Ors. in FAO No. 1324/2016 decided on 06.09.2019, Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 39 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 40 of 50 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had similarly observed that the driving licence produced on record was genuine and valid with effect from 23.07.2013 to 22.07.2014, however, it had been argued on behalf of insurance company that since the licence in question was not in smart card form therefore it was not genuine in terms of notification issued by State of Nagaland to the effect that the licence would be deemed to be fake, if the same was not got converted into smart card from the concerned issuing authority. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had while rejecting the contention of the insurance company observed that if the driver had not got converted his driving licence into smart card form and was found driving his vehicle in the state of Nagaland then he may be challaned for non possession of a valid driving licence in that state, however, this fact would ipso facto not establish that the driver was not a duly authorized licence holder for the purpose of M.V. Act and therefore the contention raised in the appeal was non meritorious and deserved to be rejected. Relevant extract of observations made in this case by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
With regard to driving licence, the sole submission made by counsel for the appellant is that driving licence produced on record was issued by an authority at Nagaland valid from 23.07.2013 to 22.07.2014. It is argued that since the licence is not in smart card form and a notification was issued by the State of Nagaland that such like licences would be deemed to be cancelled unless obtained in smart card form, it is to be construed that driver of offending vehicle was not duly licensed on the date of occurrence, therefore, the insurance company is entitled to have right to recovery against the insured Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 40 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 41 of 50 after payment of compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, in para 28 of the award, has noticed that Mehar Singh had driving licence Ex.R2 covering the period of accident that took place on 16.07.2014. The licence was valid from 23.07.2013 to 22.07.2014. The insurance company did not examine any witness from the concerned licensing authority to prove that licence in question was not issued by the said authority. If the driver had not obtained a licence in smart card form and drives a vehicle in the State of Nagaland, he may be challaned for non-possessing of a valid licence in that State but that fact ipso facto does not prove that the driver was not duly licensed for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this view of the matter, contention raised by the appellant is not meritorious and accordingly rejected.
20.4 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the decided cases of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chetna and Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanti & Ors. (supra), it can be safely concluded that licence issued by any Motor Licencing Authority, situated at Nagaland prior to circular No.TC-23/MV/2007(PT-I)) dated 01.08.2014 cannot be treated as null and void in a case in which accident had taken place prior to the issuance of impugned circular of Transport Commissioner, Nagaland merely on account of the fact that R1 or driver of the offending vehicle had failed to get his manual or paper based licence converted into a smart card or digital licence in compliance of the said circular dated 01.08.2014, issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland.
20.5 In the present case as well the accident in question had occurred in the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 41 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 42 of 50 year 2013 on 17.07.2013 and the circular pertaining to digitization of licences had been issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland on 01.08.2014 and therefore as such non compliance of directions given in above said circular by R1/Shyam Masih would not make his licence null and void. Thus, as such there is no merit in contention of insurance company that the manual licence issued in favour of Shyam Masi by Phek Transport Authority, Nagaland cannot be treated as valid and effective as on the date of accident. Merely, on account of the fact that he had failed to get the said licence converted into a digital or smart card licence after the issuance of the circular in question by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland.
20.6 In the case in hand, the United India Insurance Company Limited/R3 has not been able to show anything on record to the effect that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence, R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners as per law.
20.7 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., United India Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.12,18,180/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 42 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 43 of 50 acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is 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 awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
21. Joint statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 27.07.2019 regarding their savings bank a/c with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
21.1 It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each be given to them, out of which an Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 43 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 44 of 50 amount of Rs.5,000/- be released to them, namely, Sh. Mohd. Mohsin, Rubina, Shaukin, Taufik, Tehsil in their bank a/c No.19032421000039 (Rubina), bank a/c no. 19032421000046 (Mohsin), saving bank a/c no.
19032122008731 (Shokin), saving bank a/c no. 19032421000060 (Taufiq), saving bank a/c no.19032122008824 (Khurshid) and saving bank a/c no. 1903242000053 ( Tehsil), all with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sultanpur Mazra Branch, Delhi, which is near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in FDR for a period of six months of equal amount for a period of one month to 6 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
An amount of Rs. 50,000/- each be given to Master Azam, Master Umar and Master Abdullah and the same be kept in their respective names till they attain the age of majority.
Remaining amount of Rs.7,68,180/- be given to Smt. Nazra, who is wife of the deceased, in her bank a/c no.19032122008800 maintained with OBC, Sultanpur Mazra Branch, Delhi, out of which an amount of Rs.88,180/- be released to her, which is near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a period from one month to 50 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
21.2 It shall be subject to the following further conditions and
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 44 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 45 of 50
directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit 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) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 45 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 46 of 50
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
22. Relief 22.1 As discussed above, R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.12,18,180/- with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 24.09.2013 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and their advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. 22.2 R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. 22.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
22.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non- receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 46 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 47 of 50 In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details- Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
22.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 27.07.2019 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
23. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 47 of50 Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 48 of 50 herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
on 30th November, 2023 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 48 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 49 of 50
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 17.07.2013
2. Name of deceased: Ramzani @ Mohd. Rajani
3. Age of the deceased: About 50 years 06 months and 16 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/labourer.
5. Income of the deceased: - Rs.5,741.4/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Nazra 53 years Wife
(ii) Mohd. Mohsin 37 years Son
(iii) Rubina 27 years Daughter
(iv) Shoken 26 years Son
(v) Taufiq 23 years Son
(vi) Tehsil 21 years Son
(vii) Khurshid 18 years Son
(viii) Abdullah 13 years Son
(ix) Umar 16 years Son
(x) Mohd. Azam 17 years Son
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.5,741.4/- (as per
minimum wages of unskilled
in U.P)
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10% = Rs.574.14/-
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 49 of50
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 50 of 50
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/5th (Rs.1,263.10/-) deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.5,052.44/-
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.60,629.28/-/-
12. Multiplier (E) 1313. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs.7,88,180.64/-
F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 4,00,000/- (40,000x10) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.12,18,180.64/- (rounded (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) off Rs.12,18,181/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs.8,68,359.26/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.20,86,540.26/- (rounded (L+M) off Rs.20,86,541/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.1,13,180/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.19,73,361/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 02.01.2024 award. (Clause 31) Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR) on 30st November, 2023 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Nazra Vs. Shyam Masih & Ors. Page 50 of50