Delhi District Court
Mact No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. vs . Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 1/32 on 22 December, 2021
DLCT010035902015
Presented on : 03102015
Registered on : 03102015
Decided on : 22122021
Duration : 06 Years 02 Months
IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICERMACT02, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI PRESIDED OVER BY SH. LOVLEEN
MACT No. 57402/16
1. Sh. Tek Bahadur Rahu Magar,
S/o Sh. Rahu Magar
2. Smt. Thomi Rahu Magar
W/o late Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
Both R/o H. No. 176, Village Supaul Nagarpalika,
P.O. Supaul, Distt. Supaul.
3. Chopi Rahu Magar
S/o late Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
4. Bishnu Rahu Magar
S/o late Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
5. Nama Rahu Magar
D/o late Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
6. Durga Rahu Magar
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 1/32
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22
14:47:10
+0530
D/o late Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
All permanent R/o Village Chunja, Ward no. 3,
VDC Chuja, Pyuthan, Distt. Pyutham,
ZoneRapti, Nepal
Presently at H. No. A1/A6B, Shastri Nagar,
PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi110052.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Kamal Sharma,
S/o Sh. Chottey Lal Sharma
R/o 207A/1, Prakash Mohalla,
East of Kailash, New Delhi (Drivercumowner)
2. National Insurace Co. Ltd.
12, Community Centre,
3rd Floor, East of Kailash,
New Delhi (Insurer) .......Respondents.
The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 09/02/2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the NA MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 2/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:47:21 +0530 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the NA Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. NA P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information NA Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance NA Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the petitioner (s). NA
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? NA
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed NA later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents NA filed with DAR?
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 3/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:47:29 +0530
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA part of the Investigating Officer ? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by NA the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of the NA Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance NA Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the NA liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the petitioner (s) to the offer NA of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 4/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.12.22 14:47:37 +0530
18. Date of the award 22/12/2021
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties?
20. Whether the petitioner (s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
20/09/2018
21. Date of order by which petitioner (s) were directed to open savings bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner
(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the petitioner(s) produced the 31/03/2021 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
R/o H. No. 176,
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Village Supaul petitioner(s). Nagarpalika, P.O. Supaul, Distt.
Supaul, Nepal MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 5/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:47:48 +0530 & Also At : H. No. A1/A6B, Shastri Nagar,PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi 110052
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/C of petitioner petitioner(s) and the address of the bank with no. 1 :
IFSC Code. 39225701195
maintained with
SBI, Branch Tis
Hazari, IFSC :
SBIN0000726;
25. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account Yes
(s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the petitioner (s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, SBI, Tis Hazari name and branch of the bank of the Claims Courts, Delhi. Tribunal in which the award amount is to be deposited/transfered.
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 6/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:47:59 +0530 AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. A petition was filed on 03.10.2015 in respect of a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 09.02.2014 at about 11:00 am opposite Mela Hotel situated on National Highway within the jurisdiction of PS Gajrola Distt. Amroha, Uttar Pradesh in which one Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar S/o Sh. Tek Bahadur Rahu Magar (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") lost his life. As per petition, the deceased was crossing the road at the relevant time when one car bearing registration no. DL2CA 6668 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from the side of Muradabad and dashed into the deceased. The deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital Gajrola where he was declared as 'brought dead'.
An FIR no. 77/14 PS Gajrola was registered at the instance of one Sh. Kishan S/o Sh. Lal Mani who was accompanying the deceased on his bus journey back to his native place situated in Nepal. As per petition, petitioners are the survivors of the deceased. Petitioners state that the deceased was employed as a waiter and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month from his employment. Petitioners further state that the deceased also used to work as a labourer in the evening and used to earn Rs. 5,000/ per month additionally. The petitioners seek a compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs in respect of untimely death of the deceased in the abovesaid motor vehicle accident. R1 is stated to be the drivercumowner of the offending vehicle and R2 is stated to be the MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 7/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:48:09 +0530 insurer of the same.
2. Separate written statements were filed by both the respondents.
3. R1 claimed in his written statement that he has been falsely implicated to claim compensation. R1 stated that he was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He has denied all the averments of the petition in toto.
4. R2/ Insurance Company has admitted the date, time and place of accident as well as the manner of accident as described in AnnexureA by the petitioners (see para no. 89 of the WS filed by R1, under reply on merits). Rest of the averments made by the petitioners have been denied by R2. However, it has been claimed by R2 that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R2 at the time of accident.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 19/11/2015, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.02.2014 at about 11:00 AM involving Alto Car bearing registration No. DL2CAC6668 driven and MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 8/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:48:20 +0530 owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
6. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined one Manoj Sharma as PW1, who deposed that the deceased was working as a waiter in M/s Dana Choga (restaurant) situated in Gurgaon. He further deposed that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/ per month. He placed on record the following documents : "Ex. PW1/1(OSR) is the copy of Aadhar Card of PW1;
Ex. PW1/2 is the Authority Letter of PW1; and Ex. PW1/3 is the certificate regarding employment of the petitioner."
He was crossexamined by R2 only.
6.1 Petitioners further examined petitioner no. 1 Tek Bahadur Rahu MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 9/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:48:43 +0530 Magar as PW2, who deposed about the relation of all the petitioners to the deceased, the nature of employment and monthly salary of the deceased, the factum of death of deceased on 09.02.2014 in a road traffic accident as narrated in para no. 1 of this award and placed on record the following documents : "Ex. PW2/1(OSR) is the copy of citizenship card of PW2;
Ex. PW2/2(OSR) is the copy of citizenship card of deceased;
Ex. PW2/3(OSR) is the copy of citizenship card of the wife of the deceased;
Ex. PW2/4 to Ex. PW2/7(OSR) are the copies of birth certificates of the children of the deceased;
Ex. PW2/8 is the rent agreement;
Ex. PW2/9 is the employment I card of the deceased;
Ex. PW2/10 (colly) is the copy of challan;
Ex. PW2/11(OSR) is the copy of the death certificate of the deceased; and Ex. PW2/12 is the copy of I card of the translator;
Mark A, B and C are the copy of DL of the respondent no. 1, copy of the RC and the copy of the Insurance policy."
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 10/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:48:53 +0530 6.3 He was crossexamined briefly by both the respondents.
6.4 Petitioners further examined Sh. Kishan @ Krishan Parsad Jaissy S/o Sh. Lal Mani as PW3. He deposed to have been travelling with the deceased in a bus to their native place situated in Nepal. He further deposed that their bus had stopped at Mela Hotel for breakfast and after taking breakfast, the deceased went to purchase some eatables from the other side of the road. He further deposed that while crossing the road, the deceased was struck by the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. He further deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle (i.e. R1) was apprehended after a brief chase of about 100 meters. He further deposed that the deceased was immediately removed to a hospital where he was declared as 'brought dead'. He placed on record a copy of his I Card as Ex. PW3/A. He was crossexamined in brief only by R
2. 6.5 PE was then closed on 16.07.2018 by petitioner no. 1.
7. RE was closed at the instance of Ld. Counsel for R2 on 20.09.2018. R1 was proceeded against exparte on 08.03.2018.
FINDINGS
8. None came forward on behalf of either of the parties to address of oral final arguments. No written submissions have been filed either.
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 11/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:49:03 +0530
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.02.2014 at about 11:00 AM involving Alto Car bearing registration No. DL2CAC6668 driven and owned by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
10. At the very outset, it may be noted that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 12/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:49:14 +0530 Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
11. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined the eye witness of the incident namely Sh. Kishan @ Krishan Parsad Jaissy as PW3. PW3 has deposed by way of his affidavit Ex. PW3/A that the deceased was travelling alongwith him (PW3) in a bus to their native village situated in Nepal on 09.02.2014. At about 10 am, the bus stopped at Mela Hotel situated in Distt. Amroha, UP and all the passengers disembarked for breakfast. At about 11 am, the deceased went to the other side of road to purchase some eatables but while crossing the road he was struck by the offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner. R1 was apprehended immediately and an FIR was got registered by PW3. The oral testimony of said witness was not subjected to cross examination by R1 and accordingly, his oral testimony has gone unchallenged and unrebutted qua R1. Perusal of WS filed by R3/ Insurance Company reveals (in reply on merits at paras 89) that it admits the date, time, place and manner of the accident in which the deceased lost his life. Consequently, there is no need to delve into the brief crossexamination done by R2.
12. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW3 MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 13/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:49:25 +0530 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of offending vehicle and Postmortem report also corroborate the oral testimony of PW3.
13. Besides the above, R1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the deposition being made by PW3 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
14. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle driven by R1 was involved in a collision with a pedestrian (i.e. deceased) who has crossing the road.
15. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) got involved in a collision with a pedestrian at the relevant time. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any negligence/sudden movement on the part of deceased at the relevant time, this tribunal is constrained to hold R1 guilty MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 14/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:49:37 +0530 of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
16. In view of the postmortem report of deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
18. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his rashness and negligence in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 15/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:51:02 +0530 COMPENSATION
19. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
20. In this regard, the petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 Tek Bahadur as PW2, who is stated to be the father of the deceased. PW2 has deposed vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A that the petitioner no. 2 is the widow of the deceased and the petitioners no. 3 to 6 are the minor children of the deceased. He further deposed that the deceased was working as a waiter in a restaurant situated in Gurgaon and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month from his said job. He further deposed that the deceased used to work as a labour in the evening and used to earn an additional Rs. 5,000/ per month. Petitioners further examined PW1 Manoj Sharma, Manager of the restaurant where the deceased was employed as a waiter on contractual basis. PW1 deposed that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs. 15,000/ per month at the relevant time. The said witness placed on record a certificate Ex. PW1/3 whereby the monthly income of deceased was certified to be Rs. 15,000/ per month. However, the certificate Ex. PW1/3 does not reflect the identity of the person who issued the same. PW1 has not stated in his affidavit that he issued the said certificate. In the absence of any documentary material corroborating the payment of wages @ Rs. 15,000/ per month to the deceased, this Tribunal is not inclined to uphold the claim MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 16/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:51:12 +0530of the petitioners that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs. 15,000/ per month while working as a waiter. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that the deceased earned an additional Rs. 5,000/ per month while working as a labourer in the evening, this Tribunal is constrained to hold the said claim of petitioners to be unreliable. Reason being the fact that the petitioners themselves claim that the deceased was working as a waiter in a restaurant. If the deceased was working as a waiter in a restaurant for purpose of outdoor catering (as per PW1), which work comes up only in the evenings, then the petitioners are at a loss of words to explain as to how the deceased was able to work as a labourer in the evenings and earn Rs. 5,000/ per month. In the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assume the monthly income of the deceased as per the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in the State of Haryana, the deceased being admittedly employed as a waiter in a restaurant situated in Gurgaon. At the relevant time, the minimum wages payable in the state of Haryana to an unskilled person were Rs. 213.35/per day. So the monthly income comes to be Rs. 5,547/ (Rs. 213.35 x 26 days).
21. Petitioners have claimed the age of deceased to be 35 years at the time of his unfortunate death in para no. 3 of their petition. The said claim has been affirmed by PW2 in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A and which has gone unrebutted in the crossexamination of said witness. Accordingly, the age of deceased is assumed to be 35 years at the time of his death. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 17/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:51:33 +0530 Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
22. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of accident, it is observed that petitioners claim that the deceased was survived by his father, one widow and 04 minor children. Petitioner no. 1, who is the father of deceased, has not placed any material on record to show that he was dependent upon the deceased and therefore, he is also liable to be excluded. So, only the widow and the minor children of deceased are to be treated as dependants of the deceased for the purpose of present petition.
23. Irrespective of this, 1/4th of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 35 years at the time of accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioner is also held entitled to an addition of 40% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
24. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 18/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:51:45 +0530 case comes to Rs. 11,18,275/ (rounded off) (Rs. 5,547/ X 140/100 X 3/4 X 16 X 12). This amount is awarded to the petitioner under this heads.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NONPECUNIARYHEADS
25. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 15,000/ each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head "loss of consortium":: Filial Consortium : Rs. 40,000/ Spousal Consortium : Rs. 40,000/ Parental Consortium : Rs. 1,60,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ X 4)
26. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,70,000/ under this head.
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 19/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: 2021.12.22 14:51:59 +0530 ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
27. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 13,88,275/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five only) (Rs. 11,18,275/ + Rs. 15,000/ + Rs. 15,000/ + Rs. 2,40,000/) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE
28. On 31/03/2021, statement of the petitioner no. 1 qua financial needs and requirements was recorded in terms of Clause 27 of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017. As per his statement his household expenditure is Rs. 15,000/ per month. Photocopy of the passbook of the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 maintained with concerned bank was also placed on record at that time, apart from two photographs of the petitioner no. 1. Rest of the petitioners have not bothered to appear before this Tribunal for recording of their financial statement.
28.1 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/ (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) and the said amount is MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 20/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:52:08 +0530 directed to be released in the bank of the petitioner no. 1 as mentioned in the table of this award.
28.2 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 2 is awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rs. Ten Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequentorder dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in the savings/MACT Claims SB Account of petitioner no. 2 as and when she furnishes the details to SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,17,161/ (Rupees One Lakh Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into her bank account as and when she furnishes the details to SBI, Tis Hazari Court Branch, Delhi, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 2.
28.3 Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 3 is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ (Rs. One Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 21/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:52:22 +0530 Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 16 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 16 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequentorder dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in the savings/MACT Claims SB Account of petitioner no. 3 as and when she furnishes the details to SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs. 26,193/ (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three Only) (10% of the awarded amount) is also directed to be released into her bank account as and when she furnishes the details to SBI, Tis Hazari Court Branch, Delhi, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner no. 2. 28.4 Rs. 1,86,193/ each be kept in FDRs in the name of Petitioners No. 4 to 6 till they attain majority with cumulative interest.
On attaining majority, the bank shall release the interest portion to Petitioners No. 4 to 6 by transferring the same to their respective savings bank accounts as and when they furnish the bank details to SBI, Tis Hazari Court Branch, Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal and the respective principal amount of Rs. 1,86,193/ be kept in 37 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for a period of 1 month to 37 months respectively with cumulative interest in the name of Petitioners No. 4 to MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 22/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:52:32 +0530
6. 28.5 However, the concerned bank(s) shall permit the above petitioners to withdraw money from their above savings bank accounts by means of withdrawal forms or biometric authentication. The above disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their above share. The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of the petitioners i.e. the above account (s) of the petitioners shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
28.6 The original fixed deposits be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
28.7 The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the petitioner. No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
29. R1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and also being the owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to pet MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 23/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2021.12.22 14:52:43 +0530 itioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R2 at the tim e of accident, therefore, R2 is liable to indemnify R1 in respect of above lia bility. As such, R2 is directed to deposit the above award amount with SBI B ranch Tis Hazari Courts along with interest @ 6% per annum, by way of cros sed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioner within 30 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the per iod of delay. R2 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel through registere d posts that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited.
30. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is dire cted to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tya gi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014. Fur ther Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 22/01/2022. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.12.22
14:52:51
+0530
Announced in the open court (LOVLEEN)
On this 22nd day of December, 2021 Judge, MACT02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/22/12/2021 MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 24/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:52:57 +0530 Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM IVA TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 09.02.2014
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Bom Bahadur Rahu Magar
3. Age of the deceased. : 35 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased.: Private Job
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled worker prevailing in the State of Haryana.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased: S. No. Name Age Relation Sh. Tek Bahadur (I) 56 Years Father of the deceased Smt. Thomi Rahu
(ii) Magar Wife of deceased Chopi Rahu
(iii) Magar 18 Years Daughter of deceased
(iv) Bishnu Rahu Magar 15 Years Son of deceased MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 25/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:53:07 +0530 Nama Rahu
(v) Magar 11 Years Daughter of deceased Durga Rahu
(vi) 09 Years Daughter of deceased Magar Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the Rs.5,547/ per month deceased(A)
8. AddFuture Prospects 40% future prospects granted in (B) this case.
9. LessPersonal 1/4th deduction has been done expenses of the deceased(C) MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 26/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:53:16 +0530
10. Monthly loss of Rs. 5,824.35/ dependency[(A+B) C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs. 69,892.2/ dependency (Dx12) (Rs. 5,824.35/ x 12) 12. Multiplier(E) 16
13. Total loss of Rs.11,18,275/ (rounded off) dependency (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for Rs. 2,40,000 (Rs. 40,000/ + loss of consortium(I) Rs. 40,000/ + Rs. 40,000/ x 4)
16. Compensation for Rs. 15,000/ loss of estate(J) MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 27/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:2021.12.22 14:53:29 +0530
17. Compensation Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses(K) MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 28/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:53:39 +0530
18.
TOTAL Rs. 13,88,275/
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L
)
19.
RATE OF 6%
INTEREST
AWARDED
20.
Interest amount up to Rs. 5,13,661/ (rounded off) the date of award
21.
Total amount Rs. 19,01,936/ (rounded off) including interest
22.
Award amount Petitioner no. 1 : Rs. 40,000/
released (Filial Consortium)
Petitioner No. 2 : Rs. 1,17,161/
(rounded off) (10% of the
awarded amount)
Petitioner No. 3 : Rs. 26,193/
(10% of the awarded amount)
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 29/32
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22
14:53:52
+0530
23.
Award amount kept As per award
in FDRs
24.
Mode of Mentioned in the award
disbursement of the
award amount to the
petitioner (s)
25.
Next date for 22/01/2022
compliance of the
award
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 30/32
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22
14:54:03
+0530
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 22/12/2021.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions Digitally to put up the same on 22/01/2022. signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:54:12 +0530 (LOVLEEN) P.O. MACT (Central 02) Delhi /22/12/2021 MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 31/32 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22 14:54:26 +0530 MACT NO. 57402/16 22/12/2021 Present: None.
Vide my separate award of even date, the present matter stands disposed of.
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).
Ahlmad is directed to email an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 title as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021.
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'be High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titted as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and the same be put up on 22/01/2022.
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2021.12.22
14:54:36
+0530
(LOVLEEN)
P.O.MACT(Central02)
Delhi /22/12/2021
MACT No. 57402/16 Tek Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sharma & Anr. Pages No. 32/32
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
LOVLEEN 2021.12.22
14:54:41
+0530