Delhi District Court
Pushpa Jangir & Ors. vs . Harish Chander & Ors. on 12 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/SAKET
COURTS COMPLEX/NEW DELHI
MACT No. 481/17
FIR No. 98/17
Police Station Lajpat Nagar
Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors.
Fatal Case
1. Smt Pushpa Jangir W/o Late Shri Dilip Kumar (Wife of deceased)
2. Baby Dipti D/o Late Shri Dilip Kumar (Minor daughter of deceased)
3. Shri Satyanarayan S/o Shri Tanu Ram (Father of deceased)
4. Smt Parmeshwari W/o Shri Satyanarayan (Mother of deceased)
All R/o - Ward No. 4, Kheenwasar, Churu, Rajasthan331001
.............Petitioners/claimants
Verses
1. Shri Harish Chander S/o Shri Anand Singh (Driver)
R/o B444, Gali No. 21, BBlock, Bhajan Pura,
Delhi53
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
Central WorkshopI, DTC Kingsway Camp,
BB Marg, New Delhi
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
E85, Himalaya House, K G Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001
......................Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.05.2017
Date of reserving judgment/order : 12.07.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Present claim proceedings were initiated on the basis of Detailed Accident MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 1/ 17 Report (DAR) filed by the police in respect of fatal injuries suffered by deceased namely Shri Dilip Kumar (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in a road accident.
2. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioner No. 2 is the minor daughter, petitioner No. 3 is the father and petitioner No. 4 is the mother of deceased.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.03.2017 at about 11.00 AM, deceased met with a fatal accident in front of Petrol Pump, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi involving offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1PC0779 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. After the accident, deceased was taken to JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi where doctor declared him 'brought dead'.
4. FIR No. 98/17 under Section 279/304A IPC was got registered at Police Station - Lajpat Nagar. Police conducted investigation. After due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and chargesheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.
5. During proceedings, respondent No. 1 and 2 did not file any reply/ written statement and their opportunity to file reply/ written statement was closed vide order dated 03.07.2017.
6. During proceedings, respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company filed reply/ legal offer in the sum of Rs.11,38,000/ for settling the claim of legal heirs of deceased, but the same was declined by the petitioners.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 2/ 177. Following issues were framed on 03.07.2017:
1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in the accident which took place on 01.03.2017 at 11.00 hrs involving offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing No. DL1PC0779 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver, owned by respondent No. 2/owner and insured by respondent No. 3 (insurance company)? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. During evidence, petitioner No. 1/Smt Pushpa Jangir, wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon certain documents i.e. copy of her Aadhar Card is Ex. PW1/1; PAN Card, Driving Licence and Election ID of deceased are collectively Ex. PW1/2; copy of Death Certificate of deceased is Ex. PW1/3; copies of Aadhar Cards of parents of deceased are collectively Ex. PW1/4 and Detailed Accident Report is Ex. PW1/5. She has also relied upon copy of Secondary Education Certificate of deceased as Mark A and copy of Birth Certificate of daughter of deceased as Mark B.
9. Petitioners have also got examined Shri Hemant Rai Kapila, Proprietor of Kapila Diesels as PW2 who has deposed regarding avocation and monthly earnings of deceased.
10. No other witness was examined by any of the party.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 3/ 1711. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows :
Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
12. Though no eyewitness to the accident has been examined by the petitioners, but present case is based on the DAR filed by the police and perusal of charge sheet annexed alongwith DAR shows that there are indeed two eyewitnesses to the accident i.e. Sanjay Kumar and Vivek Kumar. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., eyewitness Sanjay Kumar has stated that on 01.03.2017, he was going from his home to his office on his bike and when he reached Defence Colony Petrol Pump, he heard a noise from behind. He moved his head to see backside and saw that one green color DTC Bus bearing registration No. DL1PC0779 (Route No. 425) was in stationary condition and some people were running towards the said bus. He stopped his bike and went to see as to what has happened. He saw one man was lying on road at the rear side of abovesaid bus and said man was bleeding. Sanjay Kumar has further stated that person lying at the rear side of the bus was crushed by the bus and bus driver fled away alongwith the bus. Thereafter, he called at 100 number and police reached at the spot. He gave his written complaint to police. Site plan was also prepared at the instance of eyewitness Sanjay Kumar. Other eyewitness Vivek Kumar has also stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on 01.03.2017 at about 11.00 hours, he was going from GKII to his office at Jangpura. When he reached Petrol Pump, Defence Colony Flyover, he saw one green color DTC Bus in stationary condition and one man was lying at the rear side of said bus who was bleeding. A scooty was also lying on the road. When DTC bus driver drove away the bus, people started saying bus driver had hit a man and ran away. He noted the registration number of said bus as DL1PC0779.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 4/ 1713. Eyewitness Sanjay Kumar has clearly stated that person lying at the rear side of the bus was crushed by the bus and bus driver fled away alongwith the bus. Further, both witnesses have given the same registration number of offending vehicle in their respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further, mechanical inspection report of offending bus shows point of impact 'front/ left side accidental impact' and condition of vehicle as 'accidental'. There were some fresh damages on said bus also which are as follows: 'left side lower body outer sheet scratched and front bumper and central front show scratched'. Hence, mechanical inspection report of offending bus shows involvement of bus in the accident. Furthermore, after due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and chargesheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.
14. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 5/ 17 recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
15. In view of these circumstances and above discussion, petitioners have been able to prove that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of R1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or is likely to be suffered by each dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death : (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents.
17. Age of deceased : As per Secondary Education Certificate Mark A, date of birth of deceased was 26.06.1989. Date of accident is 01.03.2017 which implies that he was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. Thus, relevant multiplier in the present case is 17.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 6/ 1718. Income: PW1 in her affidavit of evidence stated that deceased was doing private job at Kapila Diesels, Naya Bazar, Delhi and was earning Rs.10,000/ per month. In this regard, petitioners have got examined PW2 Hemant Rai Kapila who has deposed that he is the proprietor of Kapila Diesles. He has deposed that deceased was his employee and was working with him in his proprietorship firm on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/ per month. He has also deposed that their firm provided residential accommodation to deceased at their office/firm. He has deposed that deceased joined their firm about 1½ years prior to his death. PW2 has deposed that he had issued Certificate Ex. PW2/1 regarding salary and avocation of deceased. However, during his cross examination, PW2 has admitted that he never issued any appointment letter to the deceased and he has not seen qualification of deceased at the time of his appointment. He has admitted that he never made payment to the deceased by way of cheque. He has admitted that he never obtained any signatures on any vouchers while paying the salary. He has also admitted that he has not filed any documentary evidence which shows that deceased was residing in his premises. Though petitioners have got examined PW2 in order to prove avocation and monthly earnings of deceased, but testimony of PW2 shows that no concrete document regarding monthly income of deceased has been filed on record. In such circumstances, monthly income of deceased can be taken as per minimum wages. Petitioners have filed on record Secondary Education Certificate of deceased as Mark A. At the time of accident, Rs.11,622/ per month was the minimum wages for a matriculate in Delhi. Hence, monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs.11,622/ per month.
19. Deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased was married. He is survived by his wife, minor child and parents. There is nothing on record to show that father of deceased was dependent upon deceased. Thus, as per Sarla MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 7/ 17 Verma's case (supra), onethird (1/3) of income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Hence, income of deceased is to be taken as (Rs.11,622/ minus Rs.3,874) Rs.7,748 per month.
20. Future prospects: Counsel for petitioners has argued that future prospects of deceased should be considered. However, future prospects of deceased cannot be considered since monthly income of deceased is assessed on the basis of minimum wages (Judgments relied: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P SRTC Vs. Trilok Chandara (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that in the case of selfemployed or those on a fixed salary, the element of future prospects cannot be factored in. These judgments have been referred to in the case of Ram Dayal & Anr. Vs. Ram Nibash & Ors. MAC Application No.1012/2015 decided on 21.01.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and held that in the case of Minimum Wages, no future prospects can be granted).
21. Loss of dependency: (Rs.7,748/ X 12 X 17) Rs.15,80,592/.
22. Hon'ble apex court in case titled 'Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & ors.2013(6) SCALE 563" directed Tribunals that irrespective of the claims made in the application, the Tribunals are required to award compensation which should be just equitable and reasonable. In this regard, the Hon'ble apex court revisited the amount of compensation under conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Apex court in para no. 20 & 21 held as under:
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 8/ 17"20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expense. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500/ to Rs. 10,000/ in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (Supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5000/ to Rs. 10,000/. In Legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That nonpecuniary head of damage has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 9/ 17 lakh for loss of consortium.
21. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head of 'funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/.
23. Funeral Expenses: Though PW1 has not filed any documentary evidence regarding funeral expenses, but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs.25,000/ is granted towards funeral expenses.
24. Loss of love and affection: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ is granted to petitioners towards loss and affection.
25. Loss of consortium: Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the mandate of the above judgment, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ is granted to petitioners towards loss of consortium.
26. Loss of Estate:The petitioners are also entitled for loss of estate in respect of MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 10/ 17 death of deceased. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.10,000/ is passed in favour of the petitioners towards loss of estate.
27. The total compensation is assessed as under : S. No. Description Amount 1 Loss of Dependency Rs.15,80,592/ 2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/ 3 Loss of Love & Affection Rs.1,00,000/ 4 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/ 5 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/ Total Rs.18,15,592/
28. Petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs.18,15,592/ (Rupees Eighteen Lac Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Two Only).
RELIEF
29. I hereby award an amount of Rs.18,15,592/ (Rupees Eighteen Lac Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Two Only) as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of present DAR till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
30. Respondent No. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation and to indemnify the insured. Respondent No. 3, is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 11/ 1731. Share of petitioners in awarded amount:
Petitioner No. 1 (wife of deceased) : Rs.11,15,592/ Petitioner No. 2 (minor daughter of deceased) : Rs.5,00,000/ Petitioner No. 3 (father of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/ Petitioner No. 4 (mother of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/
32. Release of awarded amount:
(i) A sum of Rs.11,15,592/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 being wife of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.1,15,592/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to her on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year. 11. Rs.50,000/ for period of 11 years.
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years. 12. Rs.50,000/ for period of 12 years.
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years. 13. Rs.50,000/ for period of 13 years.
4. Rs.50,000/ for period of 4 years. 14. Rs.50,000/ for period of 14 years.
5. Rs.50,000/ for period of 5 years. 15. Rs.50,000/ for period of 15 years.
6. Rs.50,000/ for period of 6 years. 16. Rs.50,000/ for period of 16 years.
7. Rs.50,000/ for period of 7 years. 17. Rs.50,000/ for period of 17 years.
8. Rs.50,000/ for period of 8 years. 18. Rs.50,000/ for period of 18 years.
9. Rs.50,000/ for period of 9 years. 19. Rs.50,000/ for period of 19 years.
10. Rs.50,000/ for period of 10 years. 20. Rs.50,000/ for period of 20 years.
(ii) A sum of Rs.5,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 2 being minor daughter of deceased. Entire award amount of petitioner No. 2 shall be kept in the form of FDR till she attains the age of 21 years.
(iii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 and 4 being parents of deceased. Entire award MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 12/ 17 amount of petitioner No. 3 and 4 shall be released immediately after deposit of the same by the Insurance Company.
33. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
34. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
35. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
36. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit/ savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
37. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 13/ 17 Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners/claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants/ petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants/ petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants/ petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimants/ petitioners alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants/ petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii) On the request of claimants/ petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants/ petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
Directions for the respondent No. 3: The Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 14/ 17 days from today.
38. The Respondent No. 3 will intimate to the claimants/ petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
39. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance and copy be also sent to DLSA, SE and Ld. MM concerned.
40. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 01.03.2017.
2 Date of intimation of the accident 03.03.2017.
by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident Not available.
by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 25.05.2017.
Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the 25.05.2017.
Insurance Company.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 25.05.2017.
claimant(s).
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 15/ 178 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable.
DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or DAR was not filed in time,
deficiency on the part of the but IO filed application for
Investigating Officer? If so, extension of time in filing of
whether any action/ direction DAR. No action was
warranted? warranted.
12 Date of appointment of the Not available.
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company.
13 Name, address and contact Shri R. Ranjan, Dy.
number of the Designated Officer Manager
of the Insurance Company.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Yes.
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company
admitted the liability? If so, admitted liability to pay
whether the Designated Officer of compensation. the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or No. deficiency on 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) 03.07.2017.
to the offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 16/ 1718 Date of the award. 12.07.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed No. with the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined Yes.
at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
21 Whether the photographs, Photo ICards and other specimen signatures, proof of requisite information was residence and particulars of bank already on record. account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the Part award amount is award amount to the claimant(s). released and rest is kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 18.08.2017.
award.
Announced in open Court
Dated:12.07.2017 (Madhu Jain)
POMACT02 (SE)Saket, New Delhi
12.07.2017
MACT No. 481/17 Pushpa Jangir & Ors. Vs. Harish Chander & Ors. Page No. 17/ 17