Delhi District Court
Master Shaurya & Ors. vs . Ranveer Singh & Ors. on 29 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT/SAKET COURTS COMPLEX/NEW DELHI
MACT No. 710/17
FIR No. 1306/16
Police Station Jamia Nagar
Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors.
st
1 Fatal Case (deceased Raj Kumar)
1. Master Shaurya S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor son of deceased)
2. Master Avinash S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor son of deceased)
3. Shri Yad Ram S/o Shri Mahipal (father of deceased)
4. Smt Bhagwati Devi W/o Shri Yad Ram (mother of deceased)
All R/o Village Kirpal Pur, Post Tappal, Aligarh, UP
(Petitioner No. 1 and 2, being minors, are represented through their
natural guardian/grandfather/Sh. Yadram)
.............Petitioners/claimants
And
2 nd Fatal case (deceased Seema)
1. Master Shaurya S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor son of deceased)
2. Master Avinash S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor son of deceased)
3. Shri Yad Ram S/o Shri Mahipal (fatherinlaw of deceased)
4. Smt Bhagwati Devi W/o Shri Yad Ram (motherinlaw of deceased)
All R/o Village Kirpal Pur, Post Tappal, Aligarh, UP
(Petitioner No. 1 and 2, being minors, are represented through their
natural guardian/grandfather/Sh. Yadram)
.............Petitioners/claimants
And
rd
3 Fatal case (minor deceased Ritu)
1. Master Shaurya S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor brother of deceased)
2. Master Avinash S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar (minor brother of deceased)
3. Shri Yad Ram S/o Shri Mahipal (grandfather of deceased)
4. Smt Bhagwati Devi W/o Shri Yad Ram (grandmother of deceased)
All R/o Village Kirpal Pur, Post Tappal, Aligarh, UP
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/ 33
(Petitioner No. 1 and 2, being minors, are represented through their
natural guardian/grandfather/Sh. Yadram)
.............Petitioners/claimants
VERSES
1. Shri Ranveer Singh S/o Shri Needha Ram (Driver)
R/o Village Mati Basai, PS Goda, District Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh
2. Shri Ajay Pal S/o Shri Ramji Lal (Owner)
R/o H. No. 8, Surya Vihar, Part3,
Sehatpur, Sector 91, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Office: II, SCO96, 1st Floor,
Sec16 Market, Faridabad121002
......................Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.08.2017
Date of reserving judgment/order : 22.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off claim of petitioners for compensation for the fatal injuries suffered by deceased persons namely Shri Raj Kumar, Smt Ritu and Seema (minor) in a road accident. Present claim proceedings were initiated on the basis of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the police on 16.08.2017 in respect of fatal injuries suffered by above said deceased persons.
2. Deceased Raj Kumar and Seema were married and their minor daughter Ritu also died alongwith them in the accident. Deceased Raj Kumar and Seema have left behind petitioners who are their minor children and parents.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/ 333. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2016 at about 01.50 PM, deceased Raj Kumar alongwith his wife namely Smt. Seema Devi and daughter Baby Ritu (aged 9 years) were traveling on motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 81AA0367 and when they reached at Kalandi Kunj Road No.13, near Metro Yard New Delhi, they were struck by offending truck bearing registration No. HR38V6909 which was driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Due to accident, all the three persons sitting on the motorcycle were seriously injured and died on the spot.
4. FIR No. 1306/16 under Section 279/304A IPC was got registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar. Police conducted investigation. After due investigation, police found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving and chargesheeted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.
5. At the time of filing of DAR, respondent No. 1 and 2 were present and filed reply/ written statement. Insurance company/respondent No. 3 also filed its reply/written statement.
6. In their reply/written statement the respondent No. 1 and 2 took the plea that the accident took place due to negligent driving of two wheeler by the deceased Raj Kumar and not due to the fault of respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that the deceased Raj Kumar was driving two wheeler with his three children and his wife i.e more than two persons which is violation of traffic rules and regulations. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid commercial driving licence and vehicle of respondent No. 2 was fully insured under a comprehensive insurance policy. On the basis of these MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/ 33 submissions respondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded that they are not liable for making any payment to the legal heirs of deceased persons and present case may be dismissed against them.
7. In its reply/written statement, respondent No. 3/Insurance company took plea that present DAR/petition is not maintainable as the IO has not taken any statement from any eyewitness present on spot. It is further pleaded that as per the site plan and mechanical inspection report, it is observed that the driver of motorcycle was negligent at the time of accident as he came under the rear wheel of the alleged offending vehicle. Further, he was driving the said motorcycle in triple loading/riding. However, it is not denied that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance Company at the time of alleged accident.
8. From pleadings following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal on 10.10.2017:
1. Whether all the three deceased namely Baby Ritu, Seema and Raj Kumar received fatal injuries in the road accident which took place on 13.12.2016 at 13.50 hrs involving vehicle bearing No. HR38V6909 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/driver, owned by respondent No. 2/owner and insured by respondent No. 3(insurance company)? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. During evidence, Shri Yad Ram, father of deceased Raj Kumar got MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/ 33 himself examined as PW1. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon copy of postmortem and MLC of deceased Raj Kumar as Ex. PW1/1, copy of Death Certificate of deceased Raj Kumar as Ex. PW1/2, copy of postmortem report with MLC of deceased Seema Devi as Ex. PW1/3, copy of Death Certificate of deceased Seema Devi as Ex. PW1/4, copy of postmortem report with MLC of deceased Ritu as Ex. PW1/5, copy of Death Certificate of deceased Ritu as Ex. PW1/6, copy of office ID Card of deceased Raj Kumar as Ex. PW1/7, copy of PAN Card of deceased Raj Kumar as Ex. PW1/8, computer generated pay slips of deceased Raj Kumar collectively as Ex. PW1/9, copy his Voter ID Card as Ex. PW1/10, copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/11, copy of his Voter ID Card of his wife Bhagwati Devi as Ex. PW1/12, copy of Aadhar Card of his wife Bhagwati Devi as Ex. PW1/13, copy of Birth Certificate of his grandson Avinash Chaudhary as Ex. PW1/14, copy of Birth Certificate of his grandson Shaurya Chaudhary as Ex. PW1/15, copy of his Parivar Register as Ex. PW1/16, copy of FIR No. 1306/16 registered at PS Jamia Nagar as Ex. PW1/17 and copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Seema as Ex. PW1/18.
10. PW2 is Sh. Seth Pal Singh, who is Constable in CRPF, has brought the summoned record pertaining to the details of payment made to the deceased in the Month of August and September, 2016 and he proved the copy of same as Ex. PW2/1. He further proved the salary slips of deceased Raj Kumar for the month of August and September, 2016 as Ex. PW2/2 and Ex. PW2/3 respectively.
11. No other witness was examined by the petitioners.
12. No witness was examined by any of the respondents.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/ 3313. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows : Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
14. PW1 Sh. Yad Ram has deposed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 as he hit the offending vehicle into the motorcycle of his son Raj Kumar due to which his son Raj Kumar, wife of his son Raj Kumar and his granddaughter Ritu, who were sitting on the said motorcycle, suffered fatal injuries. However, he is not an eyewitness of the accident.
15. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is maintainable if it is shown that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver, but in the present case no eyewitness has been examined by the petitioner to prove negligence of respondent No. 1. However, counsel for petitioner has relied upon the case law of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gita Bindal & Ors. (MAC App. No. 179/2004 and CM No. 5285/2008 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.10.2012) wherein principle of res ipsa loquitor has been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the aspect of negligence. The applicability of principle of res ipsa loquitur was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. Vs. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. and Anr.' (AIR 1977 SC 1735) and it was noted that in certain situations, there is hardship caused to the plaintiff to prove the manner of the accident. In such cases, principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' can be applied and the onus to prove as to how the accident happened would shift on the defendant. The rule was, thus, explained in 'Pushpabai MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/ 33 Purshottam Udeshi & Ors.' (supra) wherein it was stated that general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident 'speaks for itself' or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. In 'National Assurance Company Limited Vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors.' MAC Appeal No. 592/11 decided on 29.06.2015, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that negligence is failure to take proper care which a reasonable man would have taken under the circumstances. There may be cases where an inference of negligence can be derived from the manner in which the accident takes place. For example, where a motor vehicle goes up the pavement and strikes against a pedestrian or where the tyre of a motor vehicle bursts, it loses control and collides against a pedestrian or where the said vehicle on turning turtle causes injuries to the passengers or when a motor vehicle moving on a bridge collides against the railing and falls into a canal. In such cases, rashness and negligence is required to be proved under Motor Vehicle Act which may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the accident. In the case of 'Harsh Mishra' (supra), a reference was made to the law as laid down in 'Meena Variyal's Case (supra), 'Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr.' 1977 (2) SCC 441 and 'Surender Kumar Arora's Case (supra) to conclude that negligence is required to be proved by the person claiming compensation under the Act and that negligence is required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the case of 'National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana' 2009 ACJ 287, Hon'ble Delhi High Court made a reference to the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors.' (2001) 2 MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/ 33 SCC 9 and it was held that issue of 'wrongful act or omission' on the part of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident is left to be of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle is enough to award compensation under Sections 166 & 140 of the Act. It was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was held that proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra), it was held that it is a settled case of law that the term 'rashness and negligence' has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a claim petition as compared to the use of these terms in IPC.
16. From the discussions above, it is evident that the negligence has to be established in petition filed under Section 166 of Act and the same may be proved through the direct evidence or through the circumstances surrounding the accident or on the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur'. In my view, present case is squarely covered by the principle of res ipsa loquitor. In the FIR placed on record it is recorded that it became known from the spot that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and hit against the motorcycle and crushed the motorcyclist as a result he died; the truck tried to escape but public stopped the truck and thereafter gave beatings to the driver and its helper and the PCR came at the spot and took the driver and PCR to the hospital for treatment. These are the observations of the IO who MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/ 33 reached at the spot after receiving intimation of the accident. The fresh damage in the mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle bearing No. UP 81AA 0367 is as under: 'Rear Number plate of UP 81AA 0367 left side dented and pressed'
17. These fresh damages on the rear side of the motorcycle of deceased established that it was hit from behind. The fresh damages on offending truck No. HR 38B 6909 are as under: 'Front Bumper and lower steel channel dented/pressed/scratched. The brakes of the offending truck were OK and vehicle was roadworthy.'
18. The above fresh damages on the offending truck shows that it had struck the motorcycle from behind despite it being mechanically fit with its brakes OK. In other words it establishes that the offending truck was not driven with due care and caution and was driven in rash and negligent manner.
19. In these circumstances, the onus to prove as to how the accident happened would shift on the defendant i.e. respondent No. 1. In the present case, respondent No. 1 has not disputed the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. However, he has not stepped into the witness box to explain circumstances surrounding the accident. The chargesheet for the offence U/s. 279/304A IPC has been filed against respondent No.1 and he has not led any evidence to show that he has been falsely implicated for the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In such circumstances, petitioner has been able to prove that deceased suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the R1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/ 33Issue No. 2 (Compensation pertaining to deceased Raj Kumar):
20. Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 3104) comprehensively dealt with the relevant principals relating to the assessment of compensation in death cases. Apex Court in this case observed that in fatal accident, the measure of damage is pecuniary loss suffered or is likely to be suffered by each of dependent as a result of death, and basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death : (a) age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher, (b) income of the deceased and (c) number of dependents. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.' (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017) has dealt with the concept of 'just compensation'. Paragraph No. 57 of abovesaid Judgment is reproduced as under:
"57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, resonableness and equability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case.................. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation of the principle of equability....... The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplies to be applied....... It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
21. In the light of aforesaid guidelines and parameters, this Tribunal has to assess MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/ 33 the compensation to be awarded to the claimants/petitioners.
22. Age of deceased: As per office ICard Ex. PW1/7 and PAN Card Ex. PW 1/8, date of birth of deceased Raj Kumar was 14.04.1985. Date of accident is 13.12.2016 which implies that deceased was aged 31 years & 08 months on the date of accident. Postmortem report also shows the age of deceased as 31 years. In the latest judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying multiplier. Hence, appropriate multiplier, as per 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.' [(2009) 6 SCC 121], for the age group of 31 35 is 16.
23. Income of deceased: PW1 Yad Ram, in his affidavit of evidence, has stated that his deceased son working in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable/GD and was earning gross salary of Rs. 85,689/ per month. In support of his claim he further examined PW2 Sh. Seth Pal Singh, who is Contable in CRPF, has proved the copy of office letter showing detail of payment made to the deceased in the months of August and September, 2016 as Ex. PW2/1 and copies of salary slips of deceased for the month of August and September, 2016 as Ex. PW2/2 and Ex. PW2/3 respectively. The learned counsel for insurance company has argued that salary component which needs to be considered for the purpose of salary of the deceased are basic salary and the HRA only. Learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that salary component which needs to be considered for the purpose of salary of the deceased are basic salary and HRA only. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled 'Vishakha & Ors Vs. Shree Pal & Anr.' [I (2012) ACC 452] wherein it was held that all MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 11/ 33 the perks paid to an employee by employer should be included for computation of the deceased's income for arriving at the decision. It was further held in 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors' [AIR 2008 SC 845] that "if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required to be determined.....". In 'Raj Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.' [IX (2009) SLT 211] while relying on Indira Srivastava (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that apart from dearness allowance other allowances payable for the benefit of the family, have to be considered for the computation of the annual income. In 'Pashupabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd.' [(1977) 2 SCC 745], it was held that dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and other allowances are to be treated as part of the deceased's income. It was further held that there is distinction between the conveyance allowance and a traveling allowance. Where ever a traveling allowance is paid to an employee to perform his duties this may not be considered as the deceased's income, but where conveyance allowance is paid apart from salary, the same may or may not be spent while traveling to the place of employment. Therefore, where conveyance allowance is paid as part of the salary, the same has to be taken into consideration for computation of the loss of dependency. Deduction towards the personal living expenses is otherwise made to calculate the dependency.
24. A perusal of the pay slip of the deceased for the month of August, 2016 which is Ex. PW2/3, he was having gross income of Rs.85,689/ which included Rs.32,300/ as Basic Pay, Rs.90/ as Washing Allowance, Rs.2,866/ as Ration Money, Rs.3768/ as HRA, Rs.7065/ as SDA/SSA, Rs.36,000/ as Tuition Fee MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 12/ 33 and Rs.3600/ as TPT Allowance. In his crossexamination, PW2 Seth Pal Singh, who brought the salary record of deceased has admitted that amount of tuition fee mentioned in the pay slip of September, 2016 which is Ex. PW2/3 is paid annually not monthly. Thus, tuition fee of Rs.3,000/ (Rs.36,000/ divided by 12) is taken on monthly basis. In view of Pashupabai Purshottam Udeshi (supra), all these allowances are to be treated as part of the deceased's income for the purpose of computation of compensation to the kith and kin of the deceased. Thus, monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs.52,689/ per month or Rs.6,32,268/ per annum.
25. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that income of the victim be taken after subtracting tax component. Income tax slab for the assessment year 201718 shows that for the said year, tax component was 20% for the income group of Rs.5,00,000/ to Rs.10,00,000/ of male persons below the age of 60 years. Hence, after deduction of income tax, annual income of deceased comes out to be Rs.6,05,815/ (Rs.6,32,268/ minus Rs.26,453/).
26. Dependents & deduction for personal and living expenses: Deceased was married and left behind his two minor sons and his parents. Father of deceased cannot be considered as a dependent upon deceased. Thus, as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), onethird (1/3) of income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Hence, income of deceased is taken as Rs.4,03,877/ per annum (Rs.6,05,815/ minus 1/3rd of Rs.6,05,815/).
27. Future prospects: In 'Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.' MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 13/ 33 [(2012) 6 SCC 421], Hon'ble Apex Court has not accepted as a principle that a selfemployed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it is held that 'to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite'. Hon'ble Apex Court has also discussed as to what should be the addition in the income of deceased towards the future prospects and concluded that 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 as 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. Since deceased was aged 31 years on the date of accident, there should be an increase of 50% in the income of deceased as per mandate of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, income of deceased after increasing the same by 50% comes out to be (Rs.4,03,877/ + 50% of Rs.4,03,877/) Rs. 6,05,815/ per annum.
28. Loss of Dependency: In view of the above, the calculation of loss of dependency is as follows : Rs.6,05,815/ X 16 = Rs.96,93,040/. In addition, petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. Total compensation comes out to Rs.97,23,040/ (Rs. Ninety Seven Lac Twenty Three Thousand and Forty Only).
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 14/ 33Issue No. 2 (Compensation pertaining to minor deceased Ritu):
29. Petitioners have filed on record copy of Parivar Register as Ex. PW1/16 wherein year of birth of Baby Ritu is mentioned as 2007 which is not challenged by the respondents. Hence, Baby Ritu was aged about 9 years at the time of accident (13.12.2016). Deceased is survived by her two minor brothers and grand parents. In the case of 'R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal' 2009 Law Suit (SC) 813, it has been held that the notional income of a child may be taken as 15,000/ per annum, as provided in the Second Schedule. As per case titled 'Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram' MAC App. No. 554/2010 decided on 13.05.2016, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the notional income of nonearning persons (Rs.15,000/ per annum) as specified in the Second Schedule, shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child, and taking into account the inflation, it is corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula of Rs.15,000/ X A /
331. For inflation correction, financial year of 199798 shall be treated as the 'base year'. 'A' in the aforementioned formula represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose (i.e. the accident/death occurred) and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the 'base year'.
30. For ready reference, the rates of Cost Inflation Index (CII) notified by Government of India till date, are reproduced as under:
Financial CII
Year
Before 100
1.4.1981
198182 100
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 15/ 33
198283 109
XXX XXX
199798 331
199899 351
199900 389
200001 406
200102 426
200203 447
200304 463
200405 480
200506 497
200607 519
200708 551
200809 582
200910 632
201011 711
201112 785
201213 852
201314 939
201415 1024
201516 1081
201617 1125
31. Hence, inflationcorrected income of deceased comes out to be (Rs.15,000/ X 1125 /331) Rs.50,981.87 per annum which is rounded of to Rs.50,982/ per annum.
32. Deduction towards personal and living expenses: In case titled 'Chetan Malhotra' (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that a deduction of 1/3rd (onethird) is to be made towards personal and living expenses where MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 16/ 33 notional income is considered for nonearning persons, as per Second Schedule. Hence, income of deceased is taken as (Rs.50,982/ minus Rs.16,994/) Rs.33,988/ per annum.
33. Multiplier: Since deceased was aged about 9 years at the time of his fatal accident, appropriate multiplier is 10.
34. Total pecuniary loss of estate comes out to be Rs.3,39,880/ (Rs.33,988/ X 10).
35. Nonpecuniary damage: It was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Chetan Malhotra' (supra) that a composite sum equal to the amount computed as pecuniary loss to estate may be added as nonpecuniary damage (inclusive of conventional compensation and for future prospects), in such cases as at hand to arrive at the appropriate figure of 'just compensation'. In terms of abovesaid judgment, petitioners are also awarded Rs.3,39,880/ towards nonpecuniary losses.
36. The total amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioners is as under :
Pecuniary loss of estate Rs.3,39,880/
NonPecuniary Losses
Rs.3,39,880/
Total
Rs.6,79,760/
37. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total amount of Rs.6,79,760/ (Rupees Six Lac Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred & Sixty Only).
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 17/ 33Issue No. 2 (Compensation pertaining to deceased Seema Devi):
38. Age of deceased: As per copy of Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/18, date of birth of deceased Seema Devi was 01.01.1986 which implies that she was aged 30 years 11 months on the date of accident (13.12.2016). In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying multiplier. Appropriate multiplier, as per 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.' [(2009) 6 SCC 121], is 16.
39. Income: PW1 Yad Ram (fatherinlaw of deceased) in his affidavit of evidence has stated that deceased was working and doing the work of stitching and designing the clothes of ladies and was running a boutique shop from her house and was also earning around Rs.25,000/ per month. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for Insurance Company, PW1 Yad Ram has voluntary stated that deceased was doing the work of sewing clothes and was having 45 sewing machines in the house. He also admitted that he has not filed any document to show the income of deceased. Petitioners could have got examined the clients of deceased from whom she did stitching work. There is nothing on record to show that deceased was earning anything or was running her business from home. In the given facts and circumstances, deceased is considered as a housewife. Computation of loss of dependency for housewife is to be calculated in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd Vs Manmeet Singh, 2012 ACJ 721". Delhi High Court in para 34 of abovesaid judgment passed guidelines to calculate the loss of dependency in case of death of housewife.
"34. To sum up, the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be:
(i) Minimum salary of a graduate where she is a graduate.
(ii) Minimum salary of a matriculate where she is a matriculate.MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 18/ 33
(iii) Minimum salary of a non matriculate in other cases.
(iv) There will be an addition of 25 percent in the assumed income in (i), (ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is up to 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15 percent where her age is above 40 years but less than 50 years; there will not be any addition in the assumed salary where the age is more than 50 years.
(v) When the deceased homemaker is above 55 years but less than 60 years, there will be deduction of 25 per cent and when the deceased homemaker is above 60 years, there will be deduction of 50 percent in the assumed income as the services rendered decrease substantially. Normally, the value of gratuitous services rendered will be nil (unless there is evidence to the contrary) when the homemaker is above 65 years.
(vi) If a housewife dies issueless, the contribution towards the gratuitous services is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband's remarriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50 percent of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction there on as per (iv) and v above.
(vii) There shall not be any deduction towards the personal and living expenses.
(viii) As an attempt has been made to compensate the loss of dependency, only a notional sum which may be up to Rs. 25,000/ (on present scale of the money value) towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium, if the husband is alive, may be awarded.
(ix) Since a homemaker is not working and thus not earning, no amount should be awarded towards loss to estate.
40. There is nothing on record regarding educational qualification of deceased. Income of deceased is to be assessed under minimum wages in MP. In case MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 19/ 33 titled 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khayali Ram Chaturvedi & Ors.' (MAC Appeal No. 251/14 decided on 24.01.2017), Hon'ble High Court has decided that a housewife ought to be considered as a skilled worker as she is cooking the meals and is doing household chores round the clock. In the present case, deceased was a housewife. Thus, income of deceased is to be taken as per minimum wages of a skilled worker. Minimum wages of UP is categorized on the basis of different industries e.g. Book Binding, Areated Drinks etc. At the time of accident (13.12.2016), minimum wages for a skilled workman for most industries in UP was Rs.8,889.05 per month which his rounded off to Rs.8,890/. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8,890/ per month.
41. Personal Deduction and living expenses: As per sub para of para 34 of 'Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd Vs Manmeet Singh' (supra), there shall not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses.
42. Loss of dependency: In the present case, deceased was aged less than 40 years. Hence, as per mandate of 'Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd Vs Manmeet Singh (supra), there should be an addition of 25% in the income of deceased. Thus, loss of dependency comes out to (Rs.8,890/ plus 25% of Rs.8,890/) X 12 X 16 = Rs.21,33,600/. As per directions in 'Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd Vs Manmeet Singh' (supra), only a sum of Rs.25,000/ is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Hence, petitioners are awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,58,600/ (Rs. Twenty One Lac Fifty Eight Thousand and Six Hundred Only).
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 20/ 33RELIEF:
43. I hereby award an amount of Rs.97,23,040/ to the petitioners for the fatal injuries suffered by deceased Raj Kumar; an amount of Rs.6,79,760/ to the petitioners for the fatal injuries suffered by minor deceased Ritu and an amount of Rs.21,58,600/ to the petitioners for the fatal injuries suffered by deceased Seema Devi as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of present DAR till the date of realization of the amount in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
44. Liability: Insurance Company has not led any evidence in support of their defence taken in written statement with regard to the contributory negligence committed on the part of the deceased Raj Kumar while driving his motorcycle. It is alleged by the Insurance Company that at the time of accident total five persons were sitting on the motorcycle while deceased Raj Kumar was driving the same. PW1 Yad Ram in his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A has deposed that on the unfortunate day of 13.12.2016, when deceased Raj Kumar alongwith his wife Seema Devi and daughter Ritu Singh (aged 9 years) were traveling on motorcycle bearing registration No. UP81AA0367, they were struck by offending truck bearing registration No. HR38V6909 at Kalindi Kunj Road, Near Metro Station Yard, New Delhi. Said truck was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. It is further deposed by him that all the three occupants of motorcycle were grievously injured and died on the spot. In his crossexamination, PW1 Yad Ram has reiterated that his son Raj Kumar alongwith his wife Seema and minor daughter Ritu were going to Delhi on the motorcycle and other two children of deceased Raj Kumar were in their village in Aligarh on that day.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 21/ 3345. In the crossexamination by the learned counsel for Insurance Company, PW1 Yad Ram has deposed that 'I cannot say whether other two children were also on the same motorcycle because I was not present at the time of accident. On the date of accident all the five i.e. three children and husband and wife had left the village for Delhi'. It is this deposition of PW1 Yad Ram on which learned counsel for Insurance Company is heavily relying in support of their argument that deceased Raj Kumar was guilty of contributory negligence as he was carrying his entire family including three children on the same motorcycle. Learned counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, has argued that PW1 Yad Ram being illiterate person living in village has been confused by the learned counsel by asking irrelevant question which has been disallowed by the court because on the point of negligence, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 has sufficiently crossexamined the witness. It is further argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that onus to prove that there were five persons traveling on the motorcycle including deceased Raj Kumar was upon the Insurance Company and Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove said fact. Further, examinationinchief and crossexamination of PW1 Yad Ram has remained consistent about the fact of deceased Raj Kumar alongwith his wife Seema and minor daughter Ritu were traveling on motorcycle and other two sons of deceased Raj Kumar (petitioners herein) were at their village at Aligarh. In case the other two sons of deceased were also on the motorcycle and accident was so fatal that deceased Raj Kumar and his wife Seema and their minor daughter Ritu died on the spot, there is every likelihood that they would have certainly suffered some injuries. There is nothing alleged on behalf of Insurance Company that petitioners were able to manipulate the entire record of police/ IO also. IO who visited the spot of accident immediately after the accident has reported in rukka on which FIR was registered that when he reached at the spot he found three bodies lying on MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 22/ 33 road in the pool of blood who were one male, one female and one female child. He has further reported that offending truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle and crushed the motorcyclist and other occupants of motorcycle who died on the spot. Moreover, driver and conductor of the offending truck were beaten by the public persons and were rushed to the hospital. Learned counsel for Insurance Company could have examined the driver of the offending truck to prove that five persons were traveling on the motorcycle at the time of accident, but that evidence has not been led by the Insurance Company. Mechanical Inspection Reports of offending truck and motorcycle have already been discussed and they clearly explains that motorcycle was hit from behind by the offending truck which was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Nothing was suggested by driver and conductor in the crossexamination of PW1 Yad Ram that motorcycle was having five persons and it was suggested that deceased Raj Kumar was sitting on the motorcycle alongwith heavy bags as a result he lost balance and sustained injuries without any fault of any vehicle. Because of the above discussions, I find force in the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners that Insurance Company has failed to prove any contributory negligence on part of deceased Raj Kumar and all the three occupants of motorcycle died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that deceased was having valid driving licence and instead of five persons, only deceased Raj Kumar, his wife Smt. Seema Devi and their minor daughter aged only 9 years were sitting on the said motorcycle at the time of accident and hence there is no question arises regarding contributory negligence in that regard. Moreover, all the three occupants of said motorcycle died in the said accident due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 23/ 33 to indemnify the insured and to pay compensation to petitioners by depositing the same with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, Saket, New Delhi within a period of 30 days from today alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
46. Share of petitioners in award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Raj Kumar: Minor petitioners No. 1 and 2 are to be lookedafter by their grandparents (petitioner No. 3 and 4) since parents of minor petitioners No. 1 and 2 died in the accident. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ and a sum of Rs.20,23,040/ is awarded to petitioners No. 3 and 4 respectively which shall be incurred on the education and other expenses of minor petitioners till they attain the age of 21 years.
Petitioner No. 1 (minor son of deceased) : Rs.28,50,000/ Petitioner No. 2 (minor son deceased) : Rs.28,50,000/ Petitioner No. 3 (father of deceased) : Rs.20,00,000/ Petitioner No. 4 (mother of deceased) : Rs.20,23,040/
47. Share of petitioners in award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Seema Devi:
Petitioner No. 1 (minor son of deceased) : Rs.8,50,000/ Petitioner No. 2 (minor son deceased) : Rs.8,50,000/ Petitioner No. 3 (fatherinlaw of deceased) : Rs.2,00,000/ Petitioner No. 4 (motherinlaw of deceased) : Rs.2,58,600/ MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 24/ 33
48. Share of petitioners in award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by minor deceased Ritu:
Petitioner No. 1 (minor brother of deceased) : Rs.2,00,000/ Petitioner No. 2 (minor brother deceased) : Rs.2,00,000/ Petitioner No. 3 (grandfather of deceased) : Rs.1,00,000/ Petitioner No. 4 (grandmother of deceased) : Rs.1,79,760/
49. Release of award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by minor deceased Ritu:
(i) Petitioner No. 1 and 2 : A sum of Rs.2,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 and 2 being minor brothers of deceased. Their entire award amount alongwith proportionate interest be kept in the form of FDR till they attain the age of 21 years.
(ii) Petitioner No. 3 : A sum of Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being grandfather of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year
(iii) Petitioner No. 4 : A sum of Rs.1,79,760/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being grandmother of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.79,760/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 25/ 33 released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years
50. Release of award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Raj Kumar:
(i) Petitioner No. 1 and 2 : A sum of Rs.28,50,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 and 2 being minor sons of deceased. Their entire award amount alongwith proportionate interest be kept in the form of FDR till they attain the age of 21 years.
(ii) Petitioner No. 3 : A sum of Rs.20,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being father of deceased.
Out of this amount, Rs.5,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 1 year 7. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 7 years
2. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 2 years 8. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 8 years
3. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 3 years 9. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 9 years
4. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 4 years 10.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 10 years
5. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 5 year 11.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 11 years
6. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 6 years 12.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 12 years
13.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 13 years
14.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 14 years
15.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 15 years
(iii) Petitioner No. 4 : A sum of Rs.20,23,040/ alongwith proportionate MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 26/ 33 interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being mother of deceased.
Out of this amount, Rs.5,23,040/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 1 year 7. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 7 years
2. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 2 years 8. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 8 years
3. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 3 years 9. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 9 years
4. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 4 years 10.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 10 years
5. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 5 year 11.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 11 years
6. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 6 years 12.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 12 years
13.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 13 years
14.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 14 years
15.Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 15 years
51. Release of award amount awarded for the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Seema Devi:
(i) Petitioner No. 1 and 2 : A sum of Rs.8,50,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 1 and 2 being minor sons of deceased. Their entire award amount alongwith proportionate interest be kept in the form of FDR till they attain the age of 21 years.
(ii) Petitioner No. 3 : A sum of Rs.2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being fatherinlaw of deceased. Out of this amount, Rs.50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 27/ 33
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years
(iii) Petitioner No. 4 : A sum of Rs.2,58,600/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner No. 3 being motherinlaw of deceased.
Out of this amount, Rs.58,600/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/ for period of 1 year
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years
3. Rs.50,000/ for period of 3 years
4. Rs.50,000/ for period of 4 years Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
52. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
53. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App.135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
54. 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, MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 28/ 33 respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
55. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners/claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants/ petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants/petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants/petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimants/ petitioners alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants/ petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimants/petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 29/ 33 convenience.
(ix) Claimants/petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, state Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
(x) In pursuance to the directions passed in Modified Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure as approved by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, claimants are directed to open a savings bank account in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence and the concerned bank is directed to not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the claimant(s) and if the same have already been issued, the bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/ or debit card shall be issued without permission of the Court. The claimant(s) is directed to produce the copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make the endorsement on the passbook.
The claimant(s) is directed to produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement as well as Aadhar Card and PAN Card before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing.
56. Directions for the respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch within a period of 30 days from today.
57. Respondent No. 3 shall intimate to the claimants/petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same. Copy of this award/judgment be given to all concerned.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 30/ 3358. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance.
59. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 13.12.2016 2 Date of intimation of the accident 14.12.2016 by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident Not available.
by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 16.08.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the 16.08.2017 Insurance Company.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 15.09.2017 claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable.
DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or There was delay in filing of
deficiency on the part of the DAR but IO filed
Investigating Officer? If so, applications for extension of
whether any action/ direction time in filing of DAR
warranted? mentioning the reason for
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 31/ 33
extension.
12 Date of appointment of the Not available.
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company.
13 Name, address and contact Not available.
number of the Designated Officer
of the Insurance Company.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Yes.
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company denied
admitted the liability? If so, its liability.
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) No legal offer has been filed
to the offer of the Insurance
Company.
18 Date of the award. 29.01.2017
19 Whether the award was passed No.
with the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined No, but their financial
at the time of passing of the award condition was inquired. to ascertain his/their financial condition?
21 Whether the photographs, Photo ICards and other specimen signatures, proof of requisite information was residence and particulars of bank already on record.
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 32/ 33account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the Entire award amount of award amount to the claimant(s). minor petitioners are kept in the form of FDRs till they attain the age of majority.
Part award amount of other petitioners are released and rest is kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 01.03.2018.
award.
Announced in open Court
Dated: 29.01.2018 (Raj Kumar Chauhan)
POMACT02 (SE)Saket, New Delhi
29.01.2018
MACT No. 710/17 Master Shaurya & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors. Page No. 33/ 33