Delhi District Court
Bhuri Devi And Anr vs Virender Yadav And Ors on 10 August, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR-II:
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT SOUTH DISTRICT :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. 113/20
Bhuri Devi and Ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors.
CNR No. :-DLST01-004496-2020
1. Bhuri Devi
W/o Sh. Ramdas ..mother of deceased
2. Ramdas
S/o Sh. Ramphal ..father of deceased
R/o Village Ladhanpur, Shahwazpur,
Sambhal, Amawati, Qutubpur, UP
Petition No. 115/20
Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors.
CNR No. :-DLST01-004493-2020
1. Surajmukhi
W/o Late Sh. Ram Khiladi
2. Yashpal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Khiladi
3. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Ram Khiladi Singh
4. Ram Fal
S/o Late Sh. Bihari ...... Petitioners
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors.
MACT/115/20
Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors.
MACT/116/20
Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
MACT/117/20
Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 1/50
MACT/121/20
Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
2
Petition No. 116/20
Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors.
CNR No. :-DLST01-004492-2020
1. Urmila Devi
W/o Late Mahesh ...wife of the deceased
2. Veerwati
D/o Late Mahesh ...daughter of the deceased
3. Asha
D/o Late Mahesh ...daughter of the deceased
4. Satish
S/o Late Mahesh ...son of the deceased
5. Mantesh Singh
S/o Late Mahesh ...son of the deceased
6. Nemavati
W/o Sh. Mahendra ...mother of the deceased
7. Mahendra
S/o Sh. Malkhan Singh ...father of the deceased
All resident of :
Village Ladhanpur, Shahwazpur, Amawati,
Kutabpur, Sambhal, UP-244303 ...petitioners
Petition No. 117/20
Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors.
CNR No. :-DLST01-004494-2020
1. Ramvati
W/o Late Netrpal ...wife of the deceased
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors.
MACT/115/20
Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors.
MACT/116/20
Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
MACT/117/20
Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 2/50
MACT/121/20
Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
3
2. Gudiya
D/o Late Netrpal ...daughter of the deceased
3. Pushpa
D/o Late Netrpal ...daughter of the deceased
4. Vinit
S/o Late Netrpal ...son of the deceased
5. Vijay
S/o Late Netrpal ...son of the deceased
6. Gajram Singh
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh ...father of the deceased
All resident of :
Village Nibora, Rudayan Distt.
Sambhal, UP-244303 ...petitioners
Petition No. 121/20
Sarvesh kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors.
CNR No. :-DLST01-004612-2020
1. Sarvesh Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Kishanlal
2. Roopwati
D/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Singh
3. Amar Pal
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Singh
4. Duravesh
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors.
MACT/115/20
Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors.
MACT/116/20
Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
MACT/117/20
Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 3/50
MACT/121/20
Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
4
5. Birjesh
S/o Kishan Lal
6 Rajvati
D/o Sh. Kishan Lal
7. Pramod
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
8. Nitesh
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Virender Yadav
S/o Sh. Sompal Singh Yadav
R/o L-227/8, Block-L, Sangam Vihar,
South, New Delhi- 110062. ....driver
2. Rajesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o OE-204, EWS Flat DLF City -2
DLF Oak Wood Estate, DLF Phase-II,
Gurgaon, Haryana
3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
5th Floor, Shakuntala Apartments,
Flat no. 514, 59, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 110019 ..Insurance Company
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.10.2020 (MACT/113/20)
: 25.09.2020 (MACT/115/20)
: 25.09.2020 (MACT/116/20)
: 25.09.2020 (MACT/117/20)
: 30.09.2020 (MACT/121/20)
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors.
MACT/115/20
Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors.
MACT/116/20
Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
MACT/117/20
Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 4/50
MACT/121/20
Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
5
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 04.08.2023
Date of pronouncement : 23.08.2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the above stated five petitions filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as amended upto date (herein after referred to as Act), as the same have emerged out of the road accident which occurred on 29.12.2019 at about 11.30 PM at Kharaili Nahar, Dankor, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, whereby the petitioners have claimed compensation for untimely death of Niresh Kumar, Mallu, Netrpal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh.
2. The brief facts as per the claims are that on 29.12.2019 Niresh Kumar alongwith his relatives Mahesh, Kishan, Mallu, Ram Khiladi, Netrapal and driver Virender Yadav were coming to Delhi from Village Ladhanpur Shahwajpur, PS Hayat Nagar, Distt. Sambhal by car bearing no. HR-55AB-9115 which was being driven by the driver Virender Yadav at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. At about 11.30 PM, when the car reached at Kharaili 'Nahar', Dankaur, all of a sudden the driver of the car lost his control over the car due to which the abovesaid car fell into the kharaili Nahar. As a result of this, all the inmates sitting in the car drowned. Some inmates were immediately taken to Kailash Hospital, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida while some MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 5/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
6were taken to Yatharth Hospital, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida where doctor declared Niresh Kumar, Mallu, Netrpal, Ram Khiladi and Mahesh as brought dead.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/driver, it is averred that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident by the police officials. He further submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the Universal Sompo General Insurance Com. Ltd. at the time of accident. He stated that he is a valid licence on the date of accident.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2/owner, it is stated that the present petition is false, fictitious and malafide and has been filed with a view to harass the respondent no. 2 and to extract money from the respondents. However, it has been admitted that vehicle of the respondent no. 2 was insured with the respondent no. 3/ Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide certificate cum policy no. 2314/59451906/00/000 valid from 15.02.2019 to 14.02.2020.
5. No WS was filed on behalf of insurance company despite opportunities being given. Even after imposition of costs WS was MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 6/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
7not filed. On 22.07.2022 my Ld. Predecessor even closed the opportunity to cross-examine PWs to the insurance company.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.04.2022 :-
a) whether the deceased Sh. Ramkhiladi S/o Sh.
Ramphal, Sh. Niresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramdas, Sh. Kishan Lal Singh S/o Sh. Chuttan Singh, Netrapal S/o Sh. Gujram and Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh.Mahendra succumbed to the injuries sutained in road accident occurred on 29.12.2019 at about 11.30 PM at Kharaili Nahar, Dankor, within the jurisdiction of PS Dankor, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. HR 55 AB 9115 (Maruti Ertiga Car), being driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.? ..OPP
b) To what amount of compensation, the LRs of deceased/the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
c) Relief
7. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record. My findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 18. In a claim petition filed under Section 166/140 of the M.V. Act, onus is on the claimants to prove that the deceased died in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 7/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
89. In MACT No. 113/2020, the petitioners examined Sh. Ram Das (father of the deceased Niresh Kumar) as PW1. In MACT No. 115/20 Smt. Surajmukhi (wife of the deceased Ram Khiladi) was examined as PW1. In MACT No. 116/20 Smt. Urmila (wife of the deceased Mahesh) was examined as PW1. In MACT No. 117/20 Smt. Ramwati (wife of the deceased Netrapal) was examined as PW1. In MACT No. 121/20 Smt. Sarvesh Kumar (wife of the deceased) was examined as PW1. Sh. Pawan Kumar, Senior Clerk, Office of Executive Engineer Provincial Division, PWD Distt Sambhal, UP (MACT No. 121/20) was the summoned witness and was examined as PW2.
10. In MACT no. 121/20, Sh. Hetram (eye witness) was examined as PW3. His evidence was ordered to be read in all the petitions being an eye witness.
11. PW1 Ram Das (in MACT NO. 113/20) is the father of the deceased Niresh Kumar deposed on the lines of his claim. On 29.12.2019 his son Niresh Kumar alongwith his relatives i.e. Mahesh s/o sh. Mahendra, Sh.Kishan Lal Singh s/o Sh. Chhuttan Singh, Sh. Mallu S/o Sh. Jhajhan, Sh. Ram Khiladi S/o Sh. Ram Pal, Sh. Netrapal S/o Sh. Gajram and driver Virender Yadav were coming to Delhi from Village Ladhanpur Shahwajpur, PS Hayat Nagar, Distt. Sambhal by car bearing no. HR-55AB-9115 (Maruti MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 8/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
9Ertiga Car) which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed. He was warned many times by the inmates not to drive the car in such a manner but driver did not pay any heed to the advise/warning given to him and continued to drive the said car carelessly and rashly. At about 11.30 PM, when the car reached at Kharaili Nahar, Dankaur, within the jurisdiction of PS Dankaur, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar all of a sudden the driver of the car lost his control over the car due to which the above said car fell into the Kharaili Nahar. As a result of this, all the inmates sitting in the car drowned and died on the spot. Some inmates were immediately taken to Kailash Hospital, Distt. Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida while some were taken to Yatharth Hospital, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida where doctor declared the as brought dead. Their postmortems were conducted at mortuary district hosptial, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The deceased was aged about 20 years old and possessing sound mind, health and robust physique. He was working as an office assistant with Arora Property Dealer, B-Block, Dilshad Garden and was getting salary of Rs.19500/- per month. He relied upon the following documents:-
• Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased Naresh Kumar. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/2 is the educational certificates of the deceased Naresh Kumar. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of the aadhar card of the deceased Naresh Kumar. (OSR) MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 9/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.10
• Ex. PW ¼ is the copy of PAN Card no. GGOPD7678M of Bhuri Devi petitioner no. 1. (OSR) • E.x PW 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Bhuri Dei (petitioner no. 1). (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the pan card No. EQVPR7563Gof the deponent. (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/7 is the copy of the aadhar card of deponent. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/8 is the certified copy of the criminal record running into twenty two pages.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident.
12. PW1 Sarvesh Kumar (MACT No. 121/20), wife of the deceased Kishan Lal Singh deposed on the lines of her claim. She relied upon the following documents:-
• Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the aadhar card of the deceased Kishan Lal. (OSR).
• Ex. PW ½ is the identity card of PWD office of deceased Kishan Lal. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/3 is the FORM 16 of the deceased Kishan Lal. • Ex. PW ¼ is the copy of the aadhar card of the deponent (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Amar Pal (petitioner no. 3 (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Durvesh (petitioner no. 4) (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/7 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Brijesh (petitioner no. 5 (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/8 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Rajvati (petitioner no. 6 (OSR) • Ex. PW 1/9 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Pramod (petitioner no. 7) (OSR) MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 10/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
11• Ex. PW 1/10 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Nitesh (petitioner no. 8 (OSR) • Mark X is the copy of the aadhar card of the petitioner no. 2 Roopwati.
• Mark Y is the copy of the salary slip of the deceased Kishan Lal Singh.
In her cross-examination, she also admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
13. PW2 Sh. Pawan Kumar (MACT No. 121/20) was the summoned witness. He produced the documents i.e. authorization letter, salary slip of the deceased Kishan Lal for the month of October 2019, November 2019 and December 2019, service of the deceased Kishan lal and joining letter dated 11.07.99 as Ex.PW2.
14. PW3 Sh. Hetram (in MACT no. 121/20) (to be read in all claim petitions) is the eye witness who deposed that on 29.12.2019 he alongwith his nephew Jasveer Kumar, Rajesh, driver Bishni and three other relatives were going to Delhi from Village Ladhanpur Shahwajpur, PS Hayat Nagar, Distt. Sambhal by car no. HR-55AA-2820. In another car bearing no. HR-55AB- 9115 Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramdas, Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh. Mahendra, Sh. Kishan Lal Singh S/o Sh. Chhuttan Singh, Sh. Mallu S/o Sh. Jhajhan, Sh. Ram Khiladi S/o Sh. Ram Pal, Sh. Netrapal S/o Sh. Gajram and driver Sh. Virender Yadav were also MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 11/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
12going to Delhi from Village Ladhanpur Shahwajpur, Shambhal. The car bearing registration no. HR-55AB-9115 (Maruti Ertica) was being driven by its driver Virender Yadav at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and in a zig zag manner. At about 11.30 PM when the car reached at Kharaili Nahar, Dankaur within the jurisdiction of PS Dankaur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar all of a sudden the driver of the car lost his control over the car due to which the above said car fell in the Kharaili Nahar. As a result of this, all the inmates drowned and died on the spot.
In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1, he denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely because he was not present at the time of accident.
15. PW1 Ramwati (MACT No. 117/20) wife of the deceased Netrapal deposed on the lines of her claim. She relied upon the following documents:-
• Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased Netra Pal. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/2 is the aadhar card of deceased Netra Pal.
(OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of the aadhar card of the deponent. (OSR) • Ex. PW ¼ is the PAN Card No. DTFPR1208Q of deponent (OSR).
• E.x PW 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Gudiya (petitioner no. 2). (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the aadhar card of Pushpa (petitioner no. 3) (OSR) MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 12/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
13• Ex. PW 1/7 is the aadhar card of Vinit (petitioner no.
4 ) (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/8 is the aadhar card of Vijay (petitioner no. 5) (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/9 is the aadhar card of Gajram Singh (petitioner no. 6) OSR In her cross-examination, she stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
16. PW1 Urmila Devi (in MACT no. 116/20), wife of the deceased Mahesh deposed on the lines of her claim. She relied upon the following documents:-
• Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased Mahesh. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/7 is the aadhar card of deceased Mahesh.
(OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of aadhar card of Veerwati (petitioner no. 2) (OSR).
• Ex. PW ¼ is the copy of the aadhar card of Asha (petitioner no. 3) (OSR).
• Ex. Pw 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Satish (petitioner no. 4) (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the aadhar card of Mantesh Singh (petitioner no. 7) OSR. • Ex.PW 1/8 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Mahendra (petitioner no. 7) OSR.
• Mark X is the copy of the aadhar card of Nemwati (petitioner no. 6).
In her cross-examination, she stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 13/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
1417. PW1 Smt. Suraj Mukhi (in MACT no. 115/20), wife of the deceased Ram Khiladi deposed on the lines of his claim. She relied upon the following documents:-
• Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased Mahesh. (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/7 is the aadhar card of deceased Mahesh.
(OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of aadhar card of Veerwati (petitioner no. 2) (OSR).
• Ex. PW ¼ is the copy of the aadhar card of Asha (petitioner no. 3) (OSR).
• Ex. Pw 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Satish (petitioner no. 4) (OSR).
• Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the aadhar card of Mantesh Singh (petitioner no. 7) OSR. • Ex.PW 1/8 is the copy of the aadhar card of the Mahendra (petitioner no. 7) OSR.
• Mark X is the copy of the aadhar card of Nemwati (petitioner no. 6).
In her cross-examination, she stated that she is not an eye witness to the accident.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the ordersheet dated 18.02.2022 insurance company sought time to file WS and opportunity was given by my Ld. Predecessor subject to cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the Legal Aid. However neither the WS was filed nor cost was paid and on 22.07.2022 even the right to cross examine the witnesses was struck off. MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 14/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
1519. The respondents did not examine any witness despite opportunities being given.
20. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PWs coupled with the criminal record placed, the petitioners have proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving.
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.(s) 1 and 2 stated that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. Therefore, the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation.
22. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 15/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
16to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
23. Nevertheless, it is also a settled legal position that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, burden is on the claimants/petitioners to prove negligence. The law to this effect declared in Minu B Mehta Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (1977) 2 SC 441 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal 2007 (5) SCC 428, which has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devki & Ors., MAC APP 165/2013 decided on 29.02.2016.
24. Certified copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 until proved to be contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
25. Police after investigation had filed charge-sheet against the respondents under Section 279/304-A IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no. 1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 16/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
17ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet u/s 279/304-A IPC are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
26. PW Hetram who was the eye witness to the accident categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. The respondents have not examined any witness in support of their contentions. No other version of accident is explained or proved on record except the one narrated by the PWs.
27. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/ driver of the aforesaid vehicle bearing no. HR-55AB-9115 was the material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioners or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioners is unrebutted and un-controverted.
28. On the basis of evidence on record, above observation and MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 17/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
18discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R1 Virender Yadav. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO.2
29. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
30 As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF NIRESH KUMAR IN MACT NO. 113/20 BHURI DEVI VS. VIRENDER YADAV AND ORS
31. Admittedly, deceased Niresh Kumar died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 18/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
19negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Niresh Kumar. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
32. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 19/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
20consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, petitioners being wife, daughter, son, father and mother are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 80,000/-
[40,000 x 2]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 20/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
21Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Niresh Kumar was unmarried left behind his legal heirs i.e. mother and father. As per the aadhar card Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the deceased was 05.08.1999. Hence, the deceased was 20 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
33. PW-1 Ram Das stated that his son was 20 years of age and was working as an office assistant with Arora Property Dealer and was getting salary of Rs.19,500/- per month. However, he has not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased. He has also failed to show any residential proof of Delhi. The aadhar card produced also reflects his address in Uttar Pradesh. The PW1 has filed educational qualification documents of the deceased. He has also place on record certificate of the deceased of graphics and web- designing All these documents also pertain to UP. In these circumstances, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of skilled worker of UP into consideration for calculating his dependency. Accordingly, the minimum wages of ' semi-skilled' worker in UP is taken which was Rs.9107/- p.m. at the time of accident i.e. 29.12.2019.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 21/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
22Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,749.8/- round off Rs.12,750/-. (Rs.9107/- + Rs.9107/-x 40/100). Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. Therefore, one-half is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,375/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,77,000/- (Rs.6375 x 12 x 18). I therefore, award Rs.13,77,000/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.13,77,000/
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 80,000/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/-
============
TOTAL = Rs.14,87,000/-
============
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 22/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
23COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF RAM KHILADI IN MACT NO. 115/20 SURAJMUKHI AND ORS. VS. VIRENDER YADAV AND ORS.
35. Admittedly, deceased Ram Khiladi died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Ram Khiladi. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
36. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 23/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
24decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, all the four petitioners being the wife, two sons and father are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 1,60,000/-
[40,000 x 4]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
37. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 24/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
25exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Ram Khiladi was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, two sons and father. However, petitioner no.2 Yashpal is aged about 30 years and can not be said to be dependent on the income of the deceased. In this case, father of the deceased is also entitled for compensation being an old aged around 100 years. Therefore, only petitioner no.(s) 1 Surajmukhi, petitioner no. 3 Sanjeev and petitioner no. 4/ Ram Fal are entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency.
38. PW1 Suraj Mukhi stated in her evidence that on 29.12.2019 her husband was working as a labour with Saleem Fruits Seller, B-Block,Dilshad Garden, Delhi - 110093 and was getting salary of Rs.16500/- per month. In her claim, however she has not filed any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled person. The minimum wages of an unskilled person in UP at the time of accident was MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 25/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
26Rs.8279/- p.m.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 61 years of age therefore, no future prospects can be made. All the four legal heirs are dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, taking 1/3 as loss to the estate and applying the multiplier of 7, the loss to the estate of the appellant is computed Rs.2,31,812/- (Rs.8279/- x 1/3 x 7 x 12). I therefore, award Rs.2,31,812/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
40. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs.2,31,812/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 1,60,000/-
============
TOTAL = Rs.4,21,812/-
============
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 26/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
27COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF MAHESH IN MACT NO. 116/20 URMILA DEVI AND ORS VS. VIRENDER YADAV AND ORS.
41. Admittedly, deceased Mahesh died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Mahesh. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
42. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 27/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
28as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, all the eight petitioners being the wife, two daughters and five sons are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 2,80,000/-
[40,000 x 7]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
43. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 28/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
29been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Mahesh was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, two daughters, two sons, mother and father. As per the aadhar card, the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '15'.
44. PW1 Urmila Devi stated in her evidence that the deceased was working as a Sales Executive with MK Traders, Khasra No.296, Village Gokalpur, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110093 and was getting salary Rs.16500/- per month. In the present case, the petitioners have not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled person of UP. The minimum wages of an unskilled person in UP at the time of accident was Rs.8279/- p.m.
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 37 years of age, therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 29/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
30future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,590/- (8,279/- + 8,279/- x 40 / 100). All the six legal heirs are dependent upon the income of the deceased except the father, therefore, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.8692/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,64,560/- (Rs.8692/- x 12 x 15). I therefore, award Rs.15,64,560/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
46. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 15,64,560/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 2,80,000/-
============
TOTAL = Rs. 18,74,560/-
============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF NETRPAL IN MACT NO. 117/20 RAMVATI AND ORS VS. VIRENDER YADAV AND ORS.
47. Admittedly, deceased Netrpal died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 30/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
31negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Netrpal. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
48. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 31/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
32consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, all the eight petitioners being the wife, two daughters, two sons and father are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 2,40,000/-
[40,000 x 6]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
49. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 32/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
33Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Netrpal was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, two daughters, two sons and father. As per the aadhar card, the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '16'.
50. PW Ramvati stated in her evidence that the deceased was working as a labour with MK Traders, Khasra NO.296, Village Gokalpur, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110093 and was getting salary Rs.18,500/- per month. In the present case also, the petitioners have not placed on record any document with regard to the occupation and income of the deceased, therefore, this Tribunal has no option but to take minimum wages of unskilled person. The minimum wages of an unskilled person in UP at the time of accident was Rs.8279/- p.m.
51. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 34 years of age, therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,590/- (8,279/- + 8,279/- x 40 / 100). All the five legal heirs are dependent upon the income of the deceased except the MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 33/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
34father, therefore, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,692/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,68,864/- (Rs.8692/- x 12 x 16). I therefore, award Rs.16,68,864/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
52. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 16,68,860/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 2,40,000/-
============
TOTAL = Rs. 19,38,860/-
============
COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF KISHAN LAL SINGH IN MACT NO. 121/20 SARVESH KUMARI AND ORS. VS. VIRENDER YADAV AND ORS.
53. Admittedly, deceased Kishan Lal Singh died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Kishan Lal Singh. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 34/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
35be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
54. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 35/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
36consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. Accordingly, in the present case, all the eight petitioners being the wife, two daughters and five sons are entitled to consortium. Therefore, under these heads, compensation is to be awarded as follows:-
S. No. Head Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of consortium 3,20,000/-
[40,000 x 8]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
55. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Kishan lal Singh was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, two daughters and five sons. In the present case, the petitioner no. 2 Roopwati i.e. daughter of the deceased can not be said to be MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 36/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
37dependent on the deceased as she is married. The petitioner no. 3/Amar Pal and petitioner no. 4/Duravesh also can not be said to be dependent on the income of the deceased being 30 and 26 years old. Therefore, only, petitioner no. 1/Sarvesh Kumari, petitioner no. 5/Brijesh, petitioner no. 6/Rajvati, petitioner no.7/Pramod and petitioner no. 8/Nitesh are entitled for loss of dependency. As per the aadhar card, the deceased was 56 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '9'.
56. PW1 Sarvesh Kumari stated in her evidence that the deceased was working as a Beldar with PWD, Rastriya Marg, Khand, Muradabad and posted at Village Kela Devi, Distt. Sambhal, UP. He was getting salary Rs.38468/- per month. To prove their contentions, the petitioners have examined PW2 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Senior Clerk, Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Distt Sambhal, UP who produced the salary slip of the deceased for the month of October 2019, November 2019 and December 2019, service record of the deceased Kishan Lal and joining letter dated 11.07.99 of the deceased and exhibited the documents as Ex.PW2(colly). Salary slip for the month of November 2019 shows Gross income of the deceased as Rs.38,468/-. After deducting City Compensation Allowance and Cycle Allowance, Rs.38,208/- p.m is taken as salary of the MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 37/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
38deceased.
57. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. The deceased was 56 years of age, therefore, an addition of 15% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.43,939/- (38,208/- + 38,208/- x 15 / 100). All the six legal heirs are dependent upon the income of the deceased, therefore, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.32,954/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.35,59,032/- (Rs.35,151/- x 12 x 9). I therefore, award Rs.35,59,032/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
58. In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 35,59,032/-
FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 15,000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 3,20,000/-
============
TOTAL = Rs. 39,09,032/-
============
MACT/113/20
Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 38/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.39
RELIEF
59. In view of my findings, in MACT no. 113/2020, I award Rs.14,87,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand only) to the LRs of the deceased Niresh Kumar alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT No. 115/2020, I award Rs.4,21,812/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve only) is awarded to the Lrs of the deceased Ram Khiladi alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT No. 116/2020, I award Rs.18,74,560/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only) is awarded to the Lrs of the deceased Mahesh alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT No. 117/2020, I award Rs.19,38,860/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) is awarded to the Lrs of the deceased Netrpal alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
In MACT No. 121/20, I award Rs.39,09,032/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Thirty Two only) is awarded to the LRs of the deceased Kishan Lal Singh alongwith interest @6% MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 39/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
40per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Niresh Kumar (MACT 113/20) (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Bhuri Devi i.e. mother of the deceased)
60. A sum of Rs.12,87,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand only) along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 08 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2/ Ramdas i.e. father of the deceased Niresh Kumar
61. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lacs only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 being father of the deceased.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 40/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
41Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Ram Khiladi (MACT 115/20) (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Surajmukhi i.e. wife of the deceased Ram Khiladi)
62. A sum of Rs.2,91,812/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve only) along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2/ Yashpal i.e. son of the deceased Ram Khiladi
63. A sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 being son of the deceased towards loss of consortium.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 3/ Sanjeev i.e. son of the deceased Ram Khiladi
64. A sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 3 being son of the deceased. The said amount is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till he attains the age of majority.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 41/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
42(In the share of Petitioner no. 4/ Ram Fal i.e. father of the deceased Ram Khiladi
65. A sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 4 being father of the deceased.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Mahesh (MACT 116/20) (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Urmila Devi i.e. wife of the deceased)
66. A sum of Rs.15,74,560/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only) along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 08 years • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 09 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 42/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.43
Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 2 to 5 Veerwati, Asha, Satish, Mantesh Singh being the children of the deceased Mahesh.
67. A sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 to 5 being children of the deceased. The amount of petitioner no.(s) 3 to 5 are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 6 and 7 Nemwati and Mahendra being parents of the deceased Mahesh
68. A sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no(s). 6 and 7 being parents of the deceased.
Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Netrpal (MACT 117/20) (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Ramvati i.e. wife of the deceased Netrpal)
69. A sum of Rs.16,88,860/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 43/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
44Ten Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 08 years • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 09 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years. Remaining amount be released to her.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 2 to 5 Gudiya, Pushpa, Vinit, Vijay being the children of the deceased Netrpal.
70. A sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2 to 5 being children of the deceased. The said amount are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 6 Gajram Singh being father of the deceased Netrpal
71. A sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 6 being father of the deceased.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 44/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
45Realization of Awarded amount in the death case of Kishan Lal Singh (MACT 121/20) (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 Sarvesh Kumari i.e. wife of the deceased Kishan lal Singh)
72. A sum of Rs.35,89,032/- along-with the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs only) is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 08 years • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 09 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 10 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 11 years • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 12 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 13 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 14 years. • Rs.2,00,000/- for a period of 15 years.
Remaining amount be released to her.
MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 45/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.46
(In the share of Petitioner no(s). 2 to 4 namely Roopwati, Amar Pal and Duravesh being the children of the deceased Kishan Lal Singh
73. A sum of Rs.40,000/- each (Rupees Forty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest are awarded to the petitioner no(s). 2 to 4 being children of the deceased towards the loss of consortium.
(In the share of Petitioner no(s) 5 to 8 namely Brijesh, Rajvati, Pramod and Nitesh being children of the deceased Kishan lal Singh
74. A sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith the proportionate interest are awarded to the petitioner no(s) 5 to 8 being children of the deceased. The amount of the petitioner no.(s) 7 and 8 are directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
75. 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 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 46/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
47petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
76. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the ld. counsel for the insurance company.
77. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
78. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
79. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 47/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
48the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
3. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
5. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
7. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
8. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
9. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
10.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
11.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors.
MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 48/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
49benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
12.The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.
3/INSURANCE COMPANY • The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
• The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 49/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.
50Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3. • Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 09.10.2023.
Pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2023 (SUDESH KUMAR-II) Presiding Officer : MACT South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi MACT/113/20 Bhuri Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadavand Ors. MACT/115/20 Surajmukhi and ors. vs. Virender yadav and ors. MACT/116/20 Urmila Devi and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors. MACT/117/20 Ramvati and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and Ors. 50/50 MACT/121/20 Sarvesh Kumari and ors. vs. Virender Yadav and ors.