Delhi District Court
Sh. Sumit Halder vs Mact Case No. 708/18 Page No. 1/2 on 15 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST-01):DELHI
MACT Case No. 708/18
1. Sh. Sumit Halder
Aged about 25 years
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Halder
(Unmarried son of the deceased)
2. Sh. Vishisht Halder
Aged about 24 years
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Halder
(Unmarried son of the deceased)
3. Ms. Jyoti
Aged about 26 years
D/o Late Sh. Sunil Halder
(Unmarried daughter of the deceased)
All R/o A-119, J. J. Colony,
Savda Nizampur, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081
4. Mrs. Geeta Barman
Age about 32 years
W/o Sh. Kishan Barman
R/o C-180, J. J. Colony, Savda,
Nangloi, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081
(Married daughter of the deceased)
5. Mrs. Anjana
Age about 30 years
r/o B-858, J. J. Colony, Savada,
Nizampur, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081
(Married daughter of the deceased)
.......... Petitioners
Versus
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 1/21
1. Sh. Hemant Rai
S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai,
R/o H. No. 9B/6634, Gali No. 5,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Central Delhi, Delhi-110005
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. ltd.
105, 1st Floor, DDA-2, District Centre,
Delhi-110058
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 11.09.2018
Date of reserving order/judgment : 07.01.2020
Date of pronouncement: : 15.01.2020
AWARD
FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 12.07.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Date not mentioned Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the 11.09.2018 Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Date not mentioned Cr. P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 11.09.2018 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 11.09.2018 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 11.09.2018
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 2/21 respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Accident in question took deficiency on the part of the Investigating place on 12.07.2018 and the Officer ? If so, whether any action/ DAR was filed on 11.09.2019 direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 11.09.2018 Officer by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Sanjay Bhagat, Vice the Designated Officer of the Insurance President-Auto Claims Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company No admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or 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) to Date not mentioned the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 15.01.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the Yes consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) were 11.09.2018 directed to open savings bank account
(s) near his place of residence and MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 3/21 produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 07.01.2020 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 are Claimant(s). residing at A-119, J. J.
Colony, Savda Nizampur, North West Delhi, Delhi-
110081 Petitioner No.4. Mrs. Barman is residing at C-
180, J. J. Colony, Savda,
Nangloi, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110081
Petitioner no.5 Mrs.
Anjana is residing at B-58,
J. J. Colony, Savada,
Nizampur, North West
Delhi, Delhi-110081
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the The petitioner no.1 Sh. Sumit claimant(s) and the address of the bank Halder is having A/c No. with IFSC Code. 4593000100052272 of Punjab National Bank, Narela Road, Ghevra New Delhi Branch IFSC Code: PUNB0459300 The petitioner no.2 Sh.
Vishisht Halder is having A/c
No. 4593000100063144 of
Punjab National Bank,
Narela Road, Ghevra New
Delhi Branch
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 4/21
IFSC Code: PUNB0459300
The petitioner no.3 Ms. Jyoti
is having A/c No.
4593000100041407 of
Punjab National Bank,
Narela Road, Ghevra New
Delhi Branch
IFSC Code: PUNB0459300
The petitioner no.4 Ms.
Geeta Barman is having A/c
No. 4593000100041382 of
Punjab National Bank,
Narela Road, Ghevra New
Delhi Branch
IFSC Code: PUNB0459300
The petitioner no.5 Ms.
Anjana is having A/c No.
4593000100051927 of
Punjab National Bank,
Narela Road, Ghevra New
Delhi Branch
IFSC Code: PUNB0459300
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes
account (s) in near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC ADJ/MACT/Parking Account Code, name and branch of the bank of of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, the Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi as informed by the amount is to be deposited/transfered. Chief Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MICR:- 110002126, IFSC Code:- SBIN0000726
1. This judgment -cum- award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 5/21 referred to as the 'Act') filed by the petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased Mrs.Madhu Bala in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2018 at about 9:00 hrs, the deceased was crossing the road at Zebra Crossing near Peeragarhi Red Light Bus Stand, then, all of a sudden, the offending car bearing No. DL-9CAM-1949 approached at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased with a great force. It has been further stated that due to the forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It has been further stated that immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, Delhi. It has been further stated that during the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident in question.
3. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioners, FIR No.240/2018 dated 12.07.2018, PS Paschim Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
4. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 54 years old possessing good health and physique. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Home Maid and earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month.
5. It has been further stated that the deceased is survived by two sons and three daughters who are the legal heirs of the deceased. It has been further stated that the petitioners no.1 & 2 are the unmarried sons of the deceased, the petitioner no.3 is the unmarried daughter of the deceased and the petitioners no.4 & 5 are the married daughters of the deceased.
6. In total, the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Only) on account of compensation.
7. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver- cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 6/218. Written statement has been filed on record by the respondents No.1 stating therein that the accident in question took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the deceased herself as he was crossing the road in a hurry and there was no zebra crossing or pedestrian zone at the place of the accident. It has been further stated that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.2 at the time of the accident. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
9. Written statement has been filed by the insurance company wherein it has been admitted that the alleged offending Car bearing no. DL-9C-AM-1949 was insured with it at the relevant time i.e. on 12.07.2018 vide policy No. 0157809088 00 for a period from 24.12.2017 to 23.12.2018 in the name of Mr. Hemant Rai. The insurance company has also filed on record the legal offer of Rs.30,000/-.
10. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 15.01.2019:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Sunil Halder(wrongly mentioned) suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 12.07.2018 at about 9:00 hrs due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-9CAM 1949by the respondent no.1 Sh. Hemant Rai, being owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with the respondent No.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
11. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined the petitioner No.1 Sh. Sumit Halder as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the present claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A; photocopies of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners as Ex. PW1/1(colly)(OSR); DAR as Ex. PW1/2(colly) and photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Mrs. Madhu Bala as Ex.
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 7/21PW1/3(OSR).
12. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-1 states that he is not an eye witness to the accident. PW-1 further states that the deceased was residing at A-119, J. J. Colony, Shabada, Nizampur alongwith he himself, petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no.3.
13. PW-1 further states that the petitioners no. 4 & 5 were already married prior to the accident and residing in their matrimonial home as on the date of the accident. PW-1 admits it to be correct that the petitioners no. 4 & 5 were not financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. PW-1 further states that his father has expired prior to the death of his deceased mother. PW-1 further states that he does not remember the date of birth of the deceased. PW-1 further states that he does not have any documentary proof regarding the occupation/income of the deceased.
14. The petitioners have also examined the eye witness to the accident in question Sh. Ramesh as PW-2 and this witness states that on 12.07.2018 at about 9:00 AM, he was at his Paan Shop near Peeragarhi Chowk, Near Bus Stand, New Delhi. PW-2 further states that a lady (deceased) was crossing the road near Peeragarhi Bus Stand, then, all of a sudden, a car bearing no. DL-9CAM-1949 approached from the side of Punjabi Bagh and hit the deceased. PW-2 further states that thereafter, the driver of the offending vehicle took the injured lady to the hospital. PW-2 further states that at about 1:00 pm on the same day, when he returned back to his Shop, police came to him and recorded his statement to this effect.
15. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-2 states that his Paan Shop is situated about 100 meters away from Peeragarhi Chowk. PW-2 further states that he runs his said shop from 9:00 AM till 8 pm. PW-2 further states that after the accident, he remained at his shop for about 15-20 minutes and thereafter, he went for taking the goods for his shop. PW- 2 further states that he did not move from his shop after the accident to the spot.
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 8/21PW-2 further states that there was no zebra crossing from where the deceased was crossing the road. PW-2 further states that the deceased was crossing the road leading towards Mundka from Punjabi Bagh. PW-2 further states that the offending vehicle came from Punjabi Bagh side. PW-2 further states that he does not know as to how many steps, the deceased had moved before the accident. PW-2 further states that he does not know as to on which portion of the road, the accident took place. PW-2 further states that he does not know as to which portion of the vehicle had struck against the deceased. PW-2 further states that the police reached at the spot after half an hour as told to him by the other persons. PW-2 further states that police did not reach at the spot in his presence. PW-2 further states that he himself did not lodge any police report regarding the accident. PW-2 further states that he was having his mobile phone in working condition on the said day. PW-2 further states that he does not know as to who had lodged the police report in respect of the said accident. PW-2 further states that the offending vehicle was I-20 car of white or silver colour.
16. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, PW-2 states that he is running this shop for the last 2-3 years. PW-2 further states that he is having the license to run the aforesaid shop. PW-2 further states that at the time of the accident, the area where the accident occurred was highly crowded. PW-2 further states that there was heavy traffic on road. PW-2 admits it to be correct that due to heavy traffic, the vehicles run at very slow speed. PW-2 further states that the speed of the offending vehicle was very slow.
17. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties. I have also meticulously perused the written final arguments filed by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company. The petitioners have also been examined under the MCTAP and I have considered the statement of the petitioners under MCTAP as well.
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 9/21My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 118. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 140 & 166 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
19. The petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 Sh. Sumit Halder as PW-1. PW-1 has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1.
20. The petitioners have further examined Sh. Ramesh as PW-2, the eye witness to the accident in question. PW-2 has categorically stated that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1.
21. PW-2 has been cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents but even during his cross-examination, he has stuck to the point that he had seen the accident in question with his naked eyes.
22. So far as the factum of the accident while driving the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1 is concerned, in the written statement filed by the respondent, the factum of the accident has not been denied by the use of the offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent no.1 at the date and time of the accident. The sole defence which has been taken by the respondent no.1 is that the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of the deceased as she was crossing the road from the place which was not having any zebra crossing.
23. In these circumstance, it has to be seen that the respondent No. 1 i.e. driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, he has utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence of the MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 10/21 respondent no.1.
24. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have claimed that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No.240/2018 dated 12.07.2018, PS Paschim Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
25. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
26. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE NO. 227. The petitioner no.1 has filed on record copy of the Aadhar Card of the deceased in the form of Ex.PW1/3(OSR). In the Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex. PW1/3, the year of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1960. The date of accident is 12.07.2018. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is taken as 58 years on the date of accident.
28. In the claim petition, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was working as maid and earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month but the petitioner No.1 in the cross-examination has stated that he does not have any documentary proof regarding the occupation/income of the deceased. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, in the written final arguments, has argued that income of the deceased has to be considered as per the Minimum Wages Act.
29. As such, to my mind, the petitioners have utterly failed to prove on MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 11/21 record that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition.
30. As such, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an Unskilled person person. The date of accident is 12.07.2018 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs.13,896/- per month (as per notification dated 04.04.2018 bearing Notification No. F.No.12(142)/02/MW/VII/201 of Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi).
31. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the petitioners cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has relied the judgment dated 15.01.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 601/2007 titled as Keith Rowe vs. Prashant & Ors.
32. In the claim petition and in the DAR also, it has been mentioned that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are the unmarried sons of the deceased, the petitioner No.3 is the unmarried daughter of the deceased and the petitioners no. 4 &5 are the married daughters of the deceased. It has been stated that the wife of the deceased has already expired prior to the death of the deceased. PW-1 in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that the petitioners no. 4 & 5 are already married, settled in their matrimonial homes and that they were not financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of the accident.
33. It has to be seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment dated 25.03.2019 passed in MAC. APP. No. 396/2019 titled as TATA AIG Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagdish & Ors. in para no. 4 thereof has held as under:-
4. The basic contention of Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was unemployed and no compensation could be awarded under the head of loss of dependency, has an inherent fallacy. Assuming, the deceased was not employed, there cannot be denying the fact that she was the mother of eight children, the husband having pre-MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 12/21
deceased her. No doubt, her children-respondent Nos.1 to 8, by themselves, would even be married, can it be, thereby, assumed that she would not be involved in domestic work of a house mother. The answer thereto, certainly has to be in the negative. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors. vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 237, the Supreme Court adverting to such nature of the work rendered by a housewife, reiterated its observations, as under:-
"12. Recognizing the services of the home maker and that domestic services have to be recognized in terms of money, in Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., this Court has held as under:- "The alternative to imputing money values is to measure the time taken to produce these services and compare these with the time that is taken to produce goods and services which are commercially viable. One has to admit that in the long run, the services rendered by women in the household sustain a supply of labour to the economy and keep human societies going by weaving the social fabric and keeping it in good repair. If we take these services for granted and do not attach any value to this, this may escalate the unforeseen costs in terms of deterioration of both human capabilities and social fabric.
Household work performed by women throughout India is more than US $612.8 billion per year (Evangelical Social Action Forum and Health Bridge, p.17). We often forget that the time spent by women in doing household work as homemakers is the time which they can devote to paid work or to their education. This lack of sensitiveness and recognition of their work mainly contributes to women's high rate of poverty and their consequential oppression in society, as well as various physical, social and psychological problems. The courts and tribunals should do well to factor these considerations in assessing compensation for housewives who are victims of road accidents and quantifying the amount in the name of fixing "just compensation"."
34. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioners no.1 to 3 are unmarried sons and daughter of the deceased. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and the ratio of the aforesaid authorities, I hereby treat the petitioners no.1 to 3 as dependent upon the deceased at the time of the accident.
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 13/2135. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08', the deceased might have been spending one- third of Rs.13,896/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind one dependent on the deceased. Therefore, after deducting one- third towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to Rs.9264/- =[Rs. 13,896/- less Rs. 4632/-].
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 14/21 income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
37. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. vs. Pooja & ors decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages,the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
38. Going by the ratio of the abovestated two authorities, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased which is 58 years in the case in hand, accordingly, the multiplier of 09 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
39. An addition of 10% on account of the future prospects has to be given as the age of the deceased was 58 years. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased has to be calculated as Rs.10,190/- (Rs.9264/- + Rs.926/- after rounding off from Rs. 926.4/- which is 10% of Rs.9264/-).
40. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '9' (for the age group of 56 to MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 15/21 60 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 11,00,520/- = (Rs. 10,190 x 12 x 9).
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in,"National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014 has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. The aforesaid amounts are to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
42. In view of the abovesaid judgment, I hereby award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
43. Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 11,70,520/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Only) = (Rs.11,00,520/- + Rs. 70,000/-) in favour of the petitioners no.1 to 3 and against the respondents.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.3
44. I award Rs. 11,70,520/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 11.09.2018 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners no.1 to 3 and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The petitioners No. 1 & 2 shall have 30% each share in the award amount and the petitioner no.3 shall have 40% share in the award amount.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
45. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 16/21 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
46. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no. 2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,70,520/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 1,20,520/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Only) shall be released to the petitioners No.1 to 3 in equal proportions keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
47. The rest of the amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- shall be kept in 105 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to 105 months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioners in the aforesaid shares. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
48. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 17/21 FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
49. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 18/21 High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
50. Since the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance company, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners in accordance with their shares with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner no.1. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 22.02.2020.
A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioners free of cost.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR )
On 15th of January, 2020 P.O. MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (15.01.2020)
Digitally
signed by
RAJ
RAJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2020.01.28
16:05:15
+0530
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 19/21
FORM -IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 12.07.2018
2. Name of the deceased : Mrs. Madhu Bala
3. Age of the deceased : 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Maid
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,896/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(I) Sh. Sumit Halder DOB: Son of the deceased
01.01.1991
(ii) Sh. Vishisht Halder DOB: Son of the deceased
01.01.1992
(iii) Ms. Jyoti DOB: Daughter of the deceased
01.01.1989
(iv) Mrs. Geeta Barman DOB: Daughter of the deceased
01.01.1986
(v) Mrs. Anjana DOB: Daughter of the deceased
01.01.1988
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.13,896/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10%
9. Less-Personal expenses 1/3rd has been deducted
of the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.10,190/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 20/21
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,22,280/-
(Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) 9
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.11,00,520/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of NIL
love and affection(H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.40,000/-
consortium(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.11,70,520/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs. 1,41,632.92(1 year 4
date of award (M) months and 4 days)
22. Total amount including Rs.13,12,152.92
interest (L + M)
23. Award amount released Rs.1,20,520/-
24. Award amount kept in Rs.10,50,000/-
FDRs
25. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant (s).
26. Next date for compliance 22.02.2020
of the award.
(RAJ KUMAR)
P.O.MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (15.01.2020)
MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 21/21
MACT Case No.708/18
15.01.2020
Present : None.
Award has been passed separately.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 22.02.2020.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAJ KUMAR) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (15.01.2020) MACT Case No. 708/18 Page No. 22/21