Delhi District Court
Smt.Suraksha Pal vs Vipin Kumar on 11 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No:77490/2016
FIR No.109/15
PS Janak Puri
1. Smt.Suraksha Pal
(Wife of deceased Tirath Ram Pal)
2. Vikas Pall
(Son of the deceased)
Both R/o C5A/307A,
Janak Puri, New Delhi
3. Smt.Sunita Katyal
W/o Ish Kumar Katyal
(Daughter of the deceased)
R/o 16/676, Gali No.20,
Joshi Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Vipin Kumar
S/o Naresh Kumar
R/o WZF40A, Gali No.3,
Virender Nagar,
Janak Puri,
New Delhi
(Driver)
2. Naresh Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Latoor Singh
R/o Village Augna (Rahmat Pur),
P.O. Khanpur, Distt.Bulandshahar,
U.P.
(Registered Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
At: Level4, TowerII, Jeevan Bharti Building,
New Delhi
(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.03.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 05.01.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 11.01.2021 AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim of 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 Tirath Ram Pal in a road vehicular accident that took place on 25.01.2015. FIR No.109/15 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Janak Puri and chargesheet was filed against respondent No.1/driver of Car bearing registration No.UP13V8776 (offending vehicle). Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and chargesheet.
2. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR as well as claim petition are that at about 02:30 pm on 25.01.2015, deceased Tirath Ram Pal was going to C4E, Market, Janak Puri on his scooter bearing registration No.DL8SBH7281. When he reached in front of BSES Office, C3, Janak Puri, suddenly offending vehicle came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the left side of scooter of the deceased. Resultantly, Tirath Ram Pal fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was then removed to Orchid Hospital by respondent No.1/driver of offending car, whereafter, during treatment Tirath Ram Pal succumbed to his injuries on 25.04.2015.
3. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was being driven by Vipin Kumar/respondent No.1 which was owned by Naresh Kumar/respondent No.2 and insured with National Insurance Company Ltd./respondent No.3.
4. In the joint Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner, the accident in question was denied and it was claimed that respondent no.1 was falsely implicated by the claimants in order to extort money. It was also claimed that Tirath Ram was struck by some other vehicle and respondent no.1 was coming behind in the alleged offending vehicle, who had only removed the injured to hospital in order to help.
5. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, it was claimed that deceased was discharged from the hospital on 16.03.2015 and he died on 25.04.2015, hence, there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question and his death. It was also averred that the deceased was driving a two wheeler scooter without any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence. It was, however, admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with it vide its Policy bearing No.351010/31/13/6134325149 which was valid as on the date of accident.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 10.08.2016:
7. ISSUES:
1. Whether the deceased Tirath Ram Pal suffered fatal injuries on 25.01.2015 at about 02:30 pm in front of BSES office, C3 Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi in a vehicular accident involving a WagonR car bearing registration No.UP13V8776, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1 Vipin Kumar, who was driving the vehicle?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be the amount and who would be liable to pay?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties through Video Conferencing and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
9. My findings on various issues are as under
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Tirath Ram Pal suffered fatal injuries on 25.01.2015 at about 02:30 pm in front of BSES office, C3 Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi in a vehicular accident involving a WagonR car bearing registration No.UP 13V8776, due to wrongful act or negligence of respondent No.1 Vipin Kumar, who was driving the vehicle?OPP
10. Since the present claim has been sought under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.2 was negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. In support of their claim, petitioners examined Vikas Pall, son of the deceased as PW1; Digpal Singh, Assistant Manager Medical Record/Max Hospital, Saket as PW2; Ms.Lovenika, MRD Incharge/Orchid Hospital and Heart Centre, Janak Puri as PW3; Lal Kishore Mandal, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident as PW4; Rajendra Kumar, Supervisor/Orchid Hospital and Heart Centre, Janak Puri as PW5; Ravi Gujar, Assistant Manager/Union Bank of India, Delhi Cantt.Branch as PW6; Dr.Rajeev Khatri, ICURMO/Orchid Hospital and Heart Centre, Janak Puri as PW7; Dr. V.K. Jain, Max Hospital Saket as PW8 and Dr.Shikha Halder, M.D./Sr.Consultant, Department of Radiation Oncology, BLK Hospital as PW9.
12. Although, PW4/Lal Kishore Mandal claimed himself to be an eye witness to the accident, his testimony does not inspire confidence and he appears to be an interested witness. He deposed that on 25.01.2015, he was going on foot towards C4E Market via C3 Block, Janak Puri to purchase some medicines. At about 2.30 pm when he reached in front of BSES Office C3 Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi, he saw a two wheeler scooter No.DL8S/BH7281 driven by Tirath Ram Pal at a very normal speed heading towards C4E, Market Janak Puri Side. He then noticed one WagonR bearing registration number UP13V8776 which was being driven by Vipin Kumar/ respondent no.1 at a very high speed in a zigzag manner, rashly and negligently struck the two wheeler scooter of Tirath Ram Pal from behind. As a result of which, Tirath Ram Pal fell on the road alongwith his scooter and sustained grievous injuries. In his cross examination by counsel for respondent no. 3 / insurance company , PW4 admitted that deceased Tirath Ram Pal was known to him prior to accident as he had been working with daugherinlaw of deceased Tirath Ram and that he is still employed with her. Perusal of FIR which has been filed alongwith DAR, clearly shows that IO did not find any eye witness at the spot. Perusal of record further reveals that statement of PW4/Lal Kishore Mandal under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.2.2015 whereas accident in question took place on 25.1.2015. There is nothing on record to explain this delay. Also, considering the circumstance that PW4 was known to the family of deceased, there is no statement of any family member that they were informed of the accident by PW4/Lal Kishore Mandal. Hence, under such circumstances possibility of his being interested witness can not be overruled. Otherwise also he was not a summoned witness but was produced by petitioner for recording evidence.
13. So far as negligence of respondent no.1/driver Vipin Kumar is concerned, it was admitted by him in his written statement that it was he, who had removed the deceased to the hospital. Although, it was stated by respondent no.1/driver that he had only removed the deceased to hospital, he failed to explain the fresh damages found on his car, which also matched with the damages caused on the scooter of the deceased. Moreover, he did not step in the witness box to prove his version. Damages caused to both vehicles corroborated the version of petitioners, as per which offending vehicle hit scooter of deceased while overtaking the scooter from right side. Also, the fact that both the vehicles were seized at the spot, fortifies the involvement of offending vehicle.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts circumstances, it is, accordingly, held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is thus decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
FINDIING ON ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be amount and who would be liable to pay?
15. So far as death of deceased Tirath Ram Pall due to injuries sustained by him in accident in question is concerned, it was vehemently argued by counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company that deceased had only sustained grievous injuries and that no fatal injuries were caused to him in the accident in question. The deceased met with the accident in question on 25.01.2015, discharged from the hospital on 16.03.2015 and had expired on 25.04.2015 i.e after more than one month from his discharge. It was also urged that, injured Tirath Ram Pal who was suffering from Prostrate Cancer had died of cancer. Per Contra, it was argued by Counsel for petitioners that deceased remained under treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident till his death and that he was already cured of cancer when he met with his accident.
16. FINDIING ON ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be amount and who would be liable to pay?
17. So far as death of deceased Tirath Ram Pall due to injuries sustained by him in accident in question is concerned, it was vehemently argued by counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company that deceased had only sustained grievous injuries and that no fatal injuries were caused to him in the accident in question. The deceased met with the accident in question on 25.01.2015, discharged from the hospital on 16.03.2015 and had expired on 25.04.2015 i.e after more than one month from his discharge. It was also urged that, injured Tirath Ram Pal who was suffering from Prostrate Cancer had died of cancer. Per Contra, it was argued by Counsel for petitioners that deceased remained under treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident till his death and that he was already cured of cancer when he met with his accident.
18. Perusal of medical record relied upon by petitioners i.e. discharge summary of Orchid Hospital ( Mark A) reflects that injured Tirath Ram Pal was brought to the hospital with alleged history of RTA and that from Orchid Hospital he was shifted to Max Hospital on the request of his relatives. Discharge summary of Max Hospital (collectively Ex.PW1/6) reflects that deceased Tirath Ram Pal was admitted in Max Hospital on 26.01.2015 and discharged on 16.03.2015. At the time of his admission, it was observed that he had a history of RTA (patient was riding a two wheeler) on 25.01.2015 at about 2.00 pm . Patient became unconscious after the incident and was brought to a local hospital (Orchid hospital) near Janakpuri, New Delhi where he received first aid. There was no history of vomiting or seizure. Patient regained consciousness in the hospital. NCCT head was done at about 4.00pm on25.01.2015 which revealed right fronto temporo parietal acute SDH with thick SAH in right sylvian fissure with mild effacement of ipsilateral ventricle and minimal midline shift and right temporoparietal minimally displaced fracture. He was administered phenytoin, antibiotic and Inj Mannitol. MRI angio was done which did not reveal any aneurysm or AVM. Later he was brought to Max Saket for further management and on examination , he was found to be conscious but confused with slurring in speech. CT head showed fracture with CT Head showed fracture with mild depression in the right temporoparietal region with underlying right frontotemporal extraaxial bleed extending into the right leaf of tentorium and into the IHF. SAH in the right frontotemporoparietal region and left high frontoparietal region . Small haemorrhagic contusion seen in bilateral temporal region and in right frontal region adjoining the sylvian fissure. Hemosinus noted in the sphenoid sinus. Orthopedic opinion was taken from Dr. Vivek Vaibhav for pain/discloated right shoulder. Conservative management was planned. CT Head was later repeated which showed the left frontoparietal SDH had increased in depth Hypodense subdural collections were seen in the bilateral frontotemporoparietal region with depot of 1.3 cm on left side an 0.9 cm on right side. The general condition of the patient was not improving and a decision to do an MRI brain was taken. MRI Brain stroke protocol showed subdural hematomas in bilateral fronto temporopareital regions, having maximum AP thickness of 12 mm on right and 15 mm on left side. He developed respiratory distress with altered sensorium in the room and was shifted to neuro ICU for observation and was later intubated and put on mechanical ventilator. . Thereafter, follow up treatment of deceased continued and on 31.03.2015 following observations in respect of condition of Tirath Ram Pall were made:
Swallows saliva No oral reaction Suction of track 34 times / per shit reduce a lot Does not tell for stool / urine . Understands commands, Awakeright, sleep during day used to take Alprax earlier Thereafter on 21.04.2015 following observations were made in respect of condition of Tirath Ram Pall:
Neurologically remains sane Talks with speaking valve Does not take much orally Keeps mouth swallowing and delayed has swelling over small joints of hand which is painful
19. In support of their claim that deceased died of fatal injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, petitioners also examined Dr.Rajeev Khatri (ICU,RMO) Orchid Hospital as PW7. In his testimony, PW7 deposed that Sh.Tirath Ram Pall ( deceased) was attended by him who was brought to the hospital with alleged history of RTA on 25.1.2015. He was a case of serious head injury. He was having internal bleeding at four places of head i.e. right front parietal sub arachnoid hemorrhage , right sylvan bleed and right temporal sub dual hemorrhage and cisternal bleed. He also sustained right temporal contusion and after getting treatment at Orchid Hospital, patient was shifted to Max Hospital. PW7 further deposed that on 25.4.2015 patient again visited the hospital for checkup but he expired on 25.4.2015 at about 9.30pm due to the head injury sustained in the accident. PW7 also proved Certificate dated 25.04.15 (Ex.PW1/1) which was prepared by him. As per the certificate Ex.PW1/1, the cause of death of patient Tirath Ram was head injury .
20. In his cross examination by counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company, PW7 deposed that deceased Tirath Ram was having cancer of prostate which was removed and thereafter cancer was cured fully. The version of PW7 was further corroborated by Dr. V.K.Jain (PW8) who testified that he was one of the members of the team which had treated Sh.Tirath Ram Pall who was admitted in Max Hospital on 26.1.2015 and discharged on 16.3.2015. He was a case of head injury with bilateral subdural hematoma. He was also having left hemiparesis . During the period of his admission, he was not treated for CA Prostate (Cancer).
21. Further PW9 Dr. Shikha Halder, MD Sr .Consultant , Department of Radiation Oncology, BLK Super Speciality Hospital deposed that the patient Tirath Ram Pall was already under treatment for CA Prostate prior to his visit for consultation in the month of October'2014. She further deposed that thereafter on 5.1.2015 , he again came for consultation and it was found that his PSA ( Prostate Specific Antigen tumour marker) was under control and no further Hormonal Therapy (Injection Eli guard and zoledronic acid) was required. PW9 has also proved the OPD card dated 5.1.2015 (Ex.PW9/B) bearing her signature at point A.
22. In her cross examination by counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company, PW9 categorically deposed that there was no possibility of recurrence of Malignancy within twenty days from 5.1.2015 and that CA prostate is a slow growing cancer and that the patient would have required to undergo followup checkups every three months to rule out any recurrence and detect any recurrence.
23. In view of above facts and circumstances and discussion, it is evident that deceased Tirath Ram Pall did not die of Prostrate cancer but died of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, from which he never recovered.
Thus Issue No.1 is decided in favour of petitioners. FINDING ON ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, what would be amount and who would be liable to pay?
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE HOSPITALIZATION AND TREATMENT OF DECEASED
24. In his evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, it was deposed by Vikas Pall ( Son of deceased) that he had incurred Rs.13,66,150.73/ on the treatment of his father who subsequently succumbed to injuries. PW1 also placed on record original medical bills along with receipts of payments Ex.PW1/8 and PW1/9 ( collectively). Petitioners also examined Sh.Digpal Singh, Assistant Manager Medical Record, Max Hospital, Saket as PW2 who pro duced record of medical bill No. MS1C132400 amounting to Rs.12,78,929/.
PW2 in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,78,929/, also proved ambu lance charges and expenses incurred on purchase of medicines and lab charges. PW2 also deposed that the original bill Ex.PW1/8 ( collectively running into 112 pages) was handed over to the patient and complete payment against the bill was received by hospital. PW5 Rajendra Kumar, Supervisor, Orchid Hospital and Heart Centre produced summoned record i.e. MLC, treatment record of pa tient Tirath Ram pall and final bill. He proved the same as Ex.PW5/A and de posed that the entire payment of bill of Rs.21,650/was received by hospital in cash from the patient. Petitioner has also proved complete summary of medical bills as mark C amounting to Rs.13,66,150.73/
25. Considering the circumstance, a compensation of Rs. 13,66,150/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Thousand and One Hundred Fifty only) is awarded towards hospitalization and medicines.
26. In SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORA TION AND ANOTHER, (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121, which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. de cided 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
27. It was rightly claimed by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 76 years at the time of accident. As per the copy of passport filed by the petitioners, date of birth of deceased Tirath Ram was 23.11.1938 . Since the accident took place on 25.01.2015, the deceased was aged 76 years at the time of accident.
Income of the deceased
28. PW1/Vikas Pall son of the deceased, in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) deposed that his deceased father was a pensioner and he had retired from the office of the Chief CDA (Pensions)Allahabad, ( UP) and he was getting Rs.12,632/ per month as pension. His pension was directly transferred in the saving bank account No.352702030001886, Union Bank of India, Delhi Cantonment Branch, New Delhi. Petitioner also examined Ravi Gujar, Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, New Delhi as PW6. PW6 produced summoned record i.e. attested copy of Bank statement of deceased Tirath Ram Pall for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015. As per the record , the last pension credited to the account of deceased was Rs.12,363/ per month. PW6 also proved the attested copy of bank statement as Ex.PW6/A (colly) running into two pages.
29. Considering the documents proved by PW6 coupled with statement of PW1, it is evident that deceased Tirath Ram Pall at the time of his death was receiving a pension of Rs.12,632/ per month.
Number of Dependents
30. PW1/Vikas Pall, son of the deceased, in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) deposed that his deceased father left behind his wife Smt. Suraksha Pall, daugher Smt. Sunita Katyal and his son Vikas Pall. However, admittedly son and daughter of deceased as per their adhar cards were of 47 years and 50 years of age at the time of accident. Hence, for the purpose of ascertaining dependency, only wife of the deceased is considered as dependent upon the deceased as on the date of accident.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES OF THE DECEASED
31. It was claimed by learned counsel for petitioners that since deceased was married, his personal expenses could not have exceeded 1/3rd of his pension and thus deduction should be to the tune of 1/3rd and not 1/2(half). To support his claim, Counsel for petitioner has relied upon Jumani Begam Appellant Vs. Ram Narayan and others Respondents CA No. 9343 of 2019, decided on 11.12.2019.
32. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case cited by learned counsel for petitioners, the deceased was aged 53 years only, whereas in the present case, not only the deceased was 76 years old, he was also ailing. In such circumstances, his personal expenses would be at least 1/2 of his pension, if not more. Thus, applying the criteria laid down in the judgment cited above (SUPRA), deduction in the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses would be 1/2(half) of his income.
Selection of multiplier
33. As the deceased was aged 75 years at the time of the accident, keeping in view the criteria laid down in SARLA VERMA CASE (SUPRA), no multiplier will be applicable.
ADDITION IN THE INCOME TOWARDS FUTURE PROSPECTS
34. In view of the ratio of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA), no addition is made towards future prospects in the income of the deceased.
LOSS OF FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY
35. However, during the course of arguments, it was very fairly urged by learned counsel for petitioners that as per the judgments of Hon'ble High court of Delhi, the loss of financial dependency in case of a deceased pensioner is to be reckoned as 1/2 of the pension as the family of the deceased pensioner, after his death is likely to receive 50% of pension as family pension. He cited a case titled as ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD versus PUSHPA DEVI & ORS, MAC.APP. 312/2011 dated 30.03.2016 , wherein it was held by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA :
The family pension, under the normal service rules, would be half of the pension that the retired government servant is entitled to. In these circumstances, the value of the family pension that would have been received by the widow after the death would be in the sum.of Rs. 4,371. This cannot be treated as loss of dependency. It is the balance of Rs.4,371/ by which the income from pension for the purposes of the family has been reduced which only deserved to be added to the calculations.
36. In view of the judgment cited above the loss of financial dependency will be 50% of the pension received by the deceased which is half of Rs.12632/ i.e. Rs. 6316/ per month.
37. The total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased is assessed as under: Rs..6,316/ x 1/2 = Rs.3,158/ Rs. 3,158 X 12 = Rs.37,896/ (rounded off to Rs.38,000/) (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand only).
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
38. In the judgment PRANAY SETHI (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 fact-centric or quan- tum- centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on per- centage basis in every three year and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years."
Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/ (Rs.15,000 + 10% of Rs.15,000) (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred) towards Funeral Expenses; Rs.16,500/ (Rs.15,000 + 10% of 15,000) (Rupees Sixteen Thousand and Five Hundred) as compensation towards Loss of Estate and Rs.44,000/ (Rs.40,000 + 10% of Rs.40,000)(Rupees Forty Four Thousand) towards Loss of Consortium.
39. The total compensation is, thus, computed as under:
SN Heads Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 38,000/
2 Funeral Expenses 16,500/
3 Loss of Estate 16,500/
4 Loss of Consortium 44,000/
5. Expenses on Medical treatment and 13,66,150/
hospitalization
TOTAL 14,81,150
(rounded off to Rs.14,81,000/)(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty One Thousand). LIABILITY
40. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3/insurance company with it as on the date of accident i.e. 25.01.2015. Therefore, it is held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under statutory liability to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
RELIEF
41. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.14,81,000/ ( Fourteen Lacs and Eighty One Thousand only) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. 17.03.2016 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
42. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the petitioners immediately along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs.
Apportionment
43. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under: SN Name Relationship with Share in the award deceased amount 1 Suraksha Pal Wife 60% 2 Vikas Pal Son 20% 3 Sunita Daughter 20% 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 petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) 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. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT SBI Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
45. In accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mr.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager/SBI, has been appointed as Nodal Officer in accordance with the abovesaid order having phone No.022 22741336/9414048606 and email id: [email protected]. In case of any assistance or noncompliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by email to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the email.
46. Out of total award amount of Rs.14,81,000/ , a sum of Rs.4,81,000/ be released to petitioners immediately as per shares mentioned above in their savings bank accounts in nationalised bank(s).
47. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rs. Ten Lacs) would be kept in FDRs in accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003 as per details mentioned herein:
"(i) An Amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ ( Six Lacs) be kept in 60(sixty) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.1/Suraksha Pal (wife), for the period of one month to six months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(ii) An Amount of Rs.2,00,000/ ( two lacs) be kept in 20(twenty) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.2/Vikas Pal (son), for the period of one month to twenty months respectively, with cumulative interest;
(iii) An Amount of Rs.2,00,000/ ( two lacs) be kept in 20(twenty) fixed deposits of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in the name of petitioner No.3/ Sunita (daughter), for the period of one month to twenty months respectively, with cumulative interest."
However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawal slip only.
48. Petitioners are directed to submit Form 15G (Form 15H in case of Senior Citizen) to the insurance company in case they are eligible for exemption of deduction of TDS.
49. 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 claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned 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 before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
50. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
51. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
52. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 28.02.2021.
53. Form IV in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2021.01.11
16:35:40 +0530
Digitally signed and announced
on 11th January, 2021
(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 25.01.2015
2. Name of the deceased Tirath Ram Pal
3. Age of the deceased 76 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Pensioner
5. Income of the deceased Rs.12,632/ per month
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
S Name Age/DOB Relation
N
1 Suraksha Pal 1942 Wife
2 Vikas Pal 1968 Son
3 Smt.Sunita Katyal 1965 Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
SN Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal (Rs.)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 6316/
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Nil
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) 3158/
10. Monthly loss of dependency 3158/
( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) 37896/
12. Multiplier (E) NIL
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F) 37896/ (rounded off to
Rs.38,000/)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) -
16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 44000/
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 16,500/
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 16,500/
19. Expenses on medical tretment and hospitalization Rs. 13,66,150/-
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs. 14,81,150/ ( Rounded
of Rs.14,81,000/)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs. 6,43,444/
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs .21,24,444/
23. Award amount released Rs. 4,81,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,00,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to FDRs
the claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 28.02.2021
31)
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2021.01.11
16:35:47 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 25.01.2015 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 17.03.2016 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance 17.03.2016 Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the 17.03.2016 Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 17.03.2016 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 13.03.2015 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company (Clause 17.03.2016
20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Sh. S.C.Sharma, Adv.
Company. (Clause 20)
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company admitted his report No
within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted
the liability? If so, whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in accordance
with law. (Clause 23)
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency
on the part of the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the 17.03.2016
offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause
24)
18 Date of award 11.01.2021
19 Whether the award was passed with the Yes
consent of the parties? (Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to
open savings bank account(s) near their Yes
place of residence? (Clause 18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were
directed to open Savings Bank Account(s)
near his place of residence and produce 27.03.2019
PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the
direction to the bank not to issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced
the passbook of their savings bank
account(s) near the place of their residence 22.05.2019
along with the endorsement, PAN card and
Aadhaar Card? (Clause 18)
23 Permanent residential address of the
C5A/307A, Janak Puri, Delhi
claimant(s). (Clause 27)
24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) and the address of the bank
with the IFSC Code. (Clause 27)
As Per Record
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank
account(s) is near their place of residence? Yes
(Clause 27)
26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at
the time of passing of the Award to
Yes
ascertain his/their financial condition?
(Clause 27)
Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
MALHOTRA Date: 2021.01.11
16:35:58 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi