Delhi District Court
Roshan Lal vs Gautam on 27 January, 2018
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.:76443 /2016
FIR No.593/2013
PS Rajouri Garden
Roshan Lal
(brother of the deceased Smt.Kunti Rani)
S/o Late Sh.Nank Chand
R/o H.No.442/443, BlockBII,
J.J. Colony, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Gautam
S/o Sh.Jogesh Rai
R/o RZ3037/34, Tughlakabad Extn.,
New Delhi
(Driver)
2. M/s Indraprastha Logistics Ltd.
M92, Greater KailashII,
New Delhi
(Registered Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
3/1011, Laxman House,
2nd Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi
(Insurer)
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.06.2014
Date of concluding arguments : 18.01.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award: 27.01.2018 -2- AWARD
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for death of Kunti Devi in a road vehicular accident. An FIR No.593/2013 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden and chargesheet was filed against Gautam/respondent No.1, driver of bus bearing registration No.DL1PC5285 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and charge sheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition and DAR are that at about 9:00 am on 09.10.2013, when deceased Kunti Rani was crossing the road in front of ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur at Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, suddenly a bus bearing registration No.DL1PC 5285 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased forcefully. Due to which, she fell down and received fatal injuries.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that Gautam/respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending vehicle owned by M/s Indraprastha Logistics Ltd. and insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited/respondent No.3.
5. In the joint Written Statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondents denied their liability and averred that the accident in question was caused due to sole negligence of the deceased as she was not crossing the road on Zebra crossing and that she suddenly came before the bus to commit suicide.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Co., it was -3- admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 vide its Policy No.32340031120100000511 which was valid from 29.11.2012 till 28.11.2013.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor vide order dated 30.10.2014:
1. Whether the deceased Smt.Kunti Rani suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.10.2013 at about 09:02 AM involving bus bearing No.DL1PC5285 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Co.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as court record.
9. My findings on various issues are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Smt.Kunti Rani suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 09.10.2013 at about 09:02 AM involving bus bearing No.DL1PC5285 driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Co.? OPP
10. Since the present claim petition has been filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. In support of his claim, petitioner Roshan Lal, brother of deceased Kunti Rani, examined himself as PW1 and the eyewitness Shri Ram Kapoor as PW2. PW2/Ram Kapoor deposed that when at about 8.30 am on 09.10.2013, he was returned from his morning walk and crossing the road -4- near ESI Hospital, he noticed the offending bus coming from Punjabi Bagh side driven by its driver in a rash and zigzag manner. He hurriedly crossed the road as the bus was approaching in a very dangerous manner. The deceased was a morning walker who was crossing the road behind him. The offending bus hit her with force, consequent thereto, she fell on the road and got seriously injured. The bus driver stopped the offending bus, got down and fled from the spot. Public persons gathered at the spot and the police arrived. He thereafter, became disturbed and left the spot.
12. PW2/Ram Kapoor was neither crossexamined by respondent Nos.1 and 2 nor respondent No.3 regarding the mode and manner of accident.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that statement of Shri Ram Kapoor was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer after registration of FIR wherein he had given identical version of the accident.
14. Regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled in KAUSHNUMMA BEGUM AND ORS. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2001 ACJ 421 SC, held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 and 140 of the Act.
15. In BASANT KAUR AND ORS. VS. CHATTAR PAL SINGH & ORS., reported as 2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB), it was observed that registration of criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle was enough to record a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident.
16. Further, in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PUSHPA RANA reported as 2009 ACJ, 287, it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of -5- 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 further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles 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. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
17. In a case titled as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. RINKI @ RINKU & ORS. in MAC APP. NO.200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012, Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.P. Mittal reiterated the aforesaid view and held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
18. Considering the testimony of PW2/Shri Ram Kapoor, DAR placed on record and the dictum of the aforecited judgments, it is established that respondent No.1/Gautam was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
19. Issue No.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the -6- respondents.
20. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, he is entitled for compensation.
21. In Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by -7- this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Therefore, in view of the aforecited judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters: Age of the deceased
22. PW1/Roshan Lal has proved on record Aadhaar Card of the deceased Kunti Rani as Ex.PW1/3. In Ex.PW1/3, the birth year of the deceased is mentioned as 1940. This document has neither been challanged nor controverted by the respondents. The accident in question took place on 09.10.2013. Accordingly, the age of the deceased Kunti Rani was 74 years at the time of accident.
Income of the deceased
23. It was claimed by the petitioner Roshan Lal in his claim petition that his deceased sister was a homemaker and thus, she was not gainfully employed. It was also claimed that deceased was a widow and issueless .
Petitioner was the only legal heir of the deceased Kunti Rani. The law with regard to loss of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife was discussed in great detail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. MANMEET SINGH reported as 2012 ACJ 721 (DELHI). The relevant paragraphs with respect to award of compensation qua loss of gratuitous services by a homemaker are reproduced as under: "(23) Thus, the value of services rendered by a homemaker should be taken as the minimum salary of a nonmatriculate, matriculate or a graduate (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary). In the case of a young mother and a wife there should be an addition of 25 per cent of the minimum salary/wages as per the educational qualification i.e., graduate, matriculate or nonmatriculate. There should be addition of 15 per cent in the case of a middleaged mother and a wife and 'nil' in case of a wife and a mother beyond the age of 50 years as the children become independent by that time. The value of gratuitous services rendered rendered should be gradually reduced after the age of 55 years, even though mothers take care of their -8- children (irrespective of their ages) even when they (the children) are married.
(24) The next question that falls for consideration is whether there should be any deduction for the personal and living expenses of the deceased (homemaker). While awarding damages there is balancing of the loss to the claimants of the pecuniary benefits with the gain of the pecuniary advantages which comes to them by reason of death. In Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, 195865 ACJ 179 (SC), it was observed as under:
`......The general rule which has always prevailed in regard to the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act is well settled, namely, that any benefit accruing to a dependant by reason of the relevant death must be taken into account. Under those Acts the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained, the position of each dependant being considered separately.' (25) In A.Rajam v. M.Manikya Reddy, 1989 ACJ 542 (AP), Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Roa (as the then was) referred to a number of English decisions.
(26) In Morris v. Rigby, (1966) 110 Sol Jo 834, the husband who was a medical officer, earning £ 2,820 a year, claimed damages for the death of his wife. He had five children aged two to fifteen years. He got his wife's sister to come and take care of them and do the domestic duties, paying her a gross wage of £ 20 a week. The Judge awarded £ 8,000 and the award was confirmed.
(27) The learned Judge further referred to Regan v. Williamson, 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD, England), where the housekeeper employed was a relative.
There, the wife was aged 37 years when she died and she left behind her husband and four sons aged 13, 10, 7 and 2 years respectively. A relative came daily (except weekends) to provide meals and to look after the boys. She was paid £ 16 per week and it cost the plaintiff further £ 6.50 per week for her food, journeys to and from her home and for national insurance stamp. The plaintiff estimated that his wife's loss had cost him £ 10 per week to clothe and feed his children and himself. Watkins, J. held that though, according to precedents, £ 22.50 (£ 16 + £ 6.50) per week minus £ 10 per week would be sufficient as justice required that the term `services' should be widely construed. Watkins, J. observed:
`I am, with due respect to the other Judges to whom I have been referred, of the view that the word `services' has been too narrowly construed. It should, at least, include an acknowledgment that a wife and mother does not work to set hours and, still less, to rule. She is in constant attendance, save for those hours when she is, if that is a fact, at work. During some of those hours she may well give the children instructions on essential matters to do with their upbringing and, possible, with such things as their homework. This sort of attention seems to be as much a service, and probably more valuable to them, than the other kinds of service conventionally so regarded."
And hastened to add:
`I am aware that there are good mothers and bad mothers. It so happens -9- that I am concerned in the present case with a woman who was a good wife and mother.' On this basis, the figure for dependency was raised from £ 12.50 (£ 22.50 £ 10) per week to £ 20 per week and a further sum of £ 1.50 was added for the deceased's financial contribution to the home, had she eventually gone out to work again. A multiplier of 11 was applied as the plaintiff was aged 43 years. The award under the Fatal Accidents Act was £ 12,298.
(28) Learned Judge further referred to Mehmet v. Perry, 1978 ACJ 112 (QBD, England), wherein the husband had to look after the five childrren aged 14, 11, 7, 6 and 3 years respectively. The two youngest children suffered from a serious hereditary blood disease requiring medication and frequent visits to hospital. Consequently, the husband had to give up his employment after his wife's death and devoted his full time to care for the family. Between September 1973 when his wife was killed and the trial that was conducted in October 1976, his net average loss of earnings were £ 1,500 a year. His future net loss would be at the rate of £ 2,000 a year. It was held by Brian Neill, QC (sitting as a deputy Judge) that, in view of the medical evidence concerning the health of the children his giving up of his job was proper and that damages should be assessed keeper but by reference to the plaintiff's represented the cost of providing the services of a fulltime housekeeper in substitution for his wife. In addition, the children were entitled, on the basis of Regan v. Williamson, 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD, England), to get £ 1,500 as part of their damages, a sum of £ 1,000 for the loss of `personal attention' to them by a `mother' which is distinct from her services as a housekeeper, but that sum must be kept within modest limits as the plaintiff was at home all the time. The plaintiff as a husband was also held to be entitled to some damages for his loss of the `personal care and attention of the wife' but that sum should be quite small to avoid any overlap with the damages awarded for housekeeping services. The last two children require support for 12 years, as per medical advice. A multiplier of 8 was adopted for the family as a unit and 12 for the plaintiff and a sum of £ 19,000 was arrived at.
(29) While awarding compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by a homemaker the Claims Tribunals or the court simply value the services.
It goes without saying that the husband looks after the wife and some amount is definitely spent on her maintenance. But, whether that amount is liable to be deducted from the value of the gratuitous services rendered by her?
(30) As held in Gobald Motor Service Ltd., 195865 ACJ 179 (SC) and Helen C.Rebello, 1999 ACJ 10(SC), that while estimating damages, the pecuniary loss has to be arrived at by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him with the gain of the pecuniary advantages which comes to him from whatever sources by reason of the death.
(31) In Regan v. Williamson, 1977 ACJ 331 (QBD), England), the learned Judge found that the expenditure on the deceased housewife was £ 10 per week, while the value of gratuitous services rendered by her was £ 22.50 per week. The figure on dependency of £ 12.50 (£ 22.50 £ 10) was taken as £ -10- 21.50 per week. Thus, the amount spent on personal and living expenditure was not really deducted in Regan v. Williamson (supra).
(32) Even on the basis of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and Helen C.Rebello (supra), the pecuniary advantages which the claimant gets on account of accidental death is only liable to be deducted. The amount of money paid on account of death by Life Insurance Corporation was held to be not deductible in Helen C.Rebello.
(33) Thus, if a deceased housewife who lost her life in a motor accident would have died a natural death, the pecuniary advantage on account of savings made of the expenditure required for her maintenance would have otherwise also accrued to the benefit of the claimants. Since this pecuniary advantage does not become receivable only on account of accidental death, in my view, the portion of the husband's income (spent on the deceased's maintenance) cannot be deducted.
(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 matriculate.
(iii)Minimum salary of a nonmatriculate where she is nonmatriculate.
(iv)There will be an addition of 25 per cent in the assumed income in (i),
(ii) and (iii) where the age of the homemaker is upto 40 years; the increase will be restricted to 15 per cent 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 50 per cent 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 service is much less, as there are greater chances of the husband's remarriage. In such cases, the loss of dependency shall be 50 per cent of the income as per the qualification stated in (i), (ii) and (iii) above and addition and deduction thereon as per (iv) and (v) above.
(vii)There shall not be any deduction towards 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 of estate." (emphasis supplied)
24. As observed in the aforecited case of Manjeet Singh (supra), "When the homemaker is above 65 years, normally the value of gratuitous services rendered will be nil (unless there is evidence to the contrary)". In the instant case, it has been duly admitted by the petitioner that deceased -11- Kunti Rani was aged 74 years and a homemaker. Hence, applying the ratio of Manjeet Singh (supra), the value of gratuitous services rendered by deceased Kunti Rani shall be nil. Petitioner is thus not entitled to any compensation under this head. Since, it has also been admitted by the petitioner that deceased was an issueless widow, therefore, there is no loss of dependency and consequential compensation.
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
25. In the judgment Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed in RAJESH AND OTHERS VS. RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS REPORTED AS (2013)9 SCC 54 and held that 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. Admittedly, deceased Kunti Rani was issueless and widow.
Therefore, neither any loss of consortium or loss of love and affection or loss of estate can be granted to the petitioner in view of the judgment of Manjeet Singh (supra). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses.
26. Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only).
LIABILITY
27. Respondent No.1/Gautam is liable to pay compensation being the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL1PC 5285 as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving.
28. It is a proved case that the offending vehicle was duly insured vide Policy No.32340031120100000511 which was valid from 29.11.2012 till 28.11.2013 including the date of accident i.e. 09.10.2013. No statutory defence was taken by respondent No.3/Insurance Co. Therefore, respondent No.1/Gautam is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third -12- party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners. RELIEF
29. In view of above findings on Issues No.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensation to petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 04.06.2014 till its realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount. Mode of payment and disbursement
30. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
31. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioner in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
32. The award amount be released to the petitioner immediately in his savings bank account.
33. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
34. Certified Copies of this judgment be sent to DLSA and concerned Learned -13- MM.
35. Form IVA in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in SOBAT SINGH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR. is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
36. Form V in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in SOBAT SINGH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR. is annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
37. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 07.03.2018.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 27th January, 2018 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM IVA SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 09.10.2013
2. Name of the deceased Kunti Rani
3. Age of the deceased 74 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Homemaker
5. Income of the deceased Nil
6. Name, age and relation of legal representatives of deceased:
Sl. Name Age Relation
No.
(i) Roshan Lal 74 years Brother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.N Heads Awarded by the Claim
o. Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Nil
8. AddFuture Prospects (B)
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency ( A+B)C = D
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D X 12) Nil
12. Multiplier (E)
13. Total loss of dependency (D X 12 X E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) 16 Compensation for loss of consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J)
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) 15,000
19. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) 15,000
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% p.a.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.4,923/
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.19,923/
23. Award amount released 15,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Through bank the claimant(s). (Clause 29)
26. Next Date for compliance of the award (Clause 07.03.2018
31) (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 09.10.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 04.06.2014 Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating 04.06.2014 Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Not known before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims 04.06.2014 Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company.
04.06.2014 (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) (Clause 11) 04.06.2014 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause Yes
16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 04.06.2014 Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Sh.Sanjeev Sirohi, Adv. Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the No DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If No so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the 21.08.2014 Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 27.01.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the Yes parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause Yes
18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card 18.01.2018 and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause
18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? (Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). F75, Sudarshan Park, (Clause 27) Moti Nagar, Delhi 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the IFSC Code. Yet to be provided (Clause 27) 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yet to be provided near their place of residence? (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their financial Yes condition? (Clause 27) (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi