Delhi District Court
Lrs Of Parveen vs . Rajesh & Ors. Page 1 Of35 on 27 October, 2022
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 1 of35
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI
New No.161/2017
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010006112017
1. Smt. Priyanka,W/o Late Sh. Parveen,
2. Baby Kushi, D/o Late Sh. Parveen,
(daughter of deceased Parveen),
3. Smt. Urmila Devi, W/o SH. Vijay Singh,
(mother of deceased Parveen),
4. Sh. Vijay Singh, S/o Sh. Munni Singh,
(father of deceased Parveen)
R/o Village Daulat Pura, P.O. Chhoti Pali,
PS Seetamani Prakhnd Block Narhat,
District Nawada, Bihar.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Sh. Rajesh S/o Sh. Soh Ram,
R/o Village Nesal, Tehsil Rajgarh,
PS Hamirwas, District Churu,
Rajasthan331303.
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Surender, S/o Sh. Mala Ram,
R/o Bigodhna, Tehsil Surajgarh,
District Jhunjunu, Rajasthan.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office: F, Kanchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, Delhi110001.
........ Insurance Co./R3
....... Respondents
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 1 of35
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 2 of35
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.01.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.10.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2022
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH and ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 10.01.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 20.01.2017
officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 20.01.2017
officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 20.01.2017
(DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 20.01.2017
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 20.01.2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later N/A
on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed Yes.
with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 20.01.2017
insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Ms.Neeru Garg,
Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 2 of35
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 3 of35
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
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 N/A
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N/A
Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 27.10.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving Yes
bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to 27.03.2019
open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 22.03.2022
passbook of their saving bank account near the place
of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN
Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) Petitioner Smt.
and the address of the bank with IFSC Code Priyanka Kumari,
savings bank a/c
no.20324093716,
Baby Khushi Kumari
saving bank a/c
No.38231171018
both with SBI,
Patharkatti, Bihar
having IFSC
No.SBIN0008123.
Smt. Urmila Devi,
saving bank a/c
no.39044077167
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 3 of35
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 4 of35
and Sh. Vijay Singh,
saving bank account
No.39012618379
both with SBI, Hisua,
District Nawada,
Bihar.
IFSC :SBIN0012598
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is Yes
near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes
of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC Code, 86143654123,
name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal 110002427,
in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from the Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 20.01.2017 with reference to FIR No.77/2015 registered at PS Mangol Puri in respect of commission of offences of causing hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the commission of offences of causing death not amounting to culpable homicide by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road without a valid and effective driving licence and by using a forged driving licence as genuine punishable u/s 279/304A/471 IPC and 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short referred to as 'M.V. Act') against driver, namely, Rajesh was also filed in respect of fatal injuries sustained by victim Parveen in a road traffic accident. The learned predecessor Court had vide order dated 20.01.2017 treated the DAR as a petition u/s 166(4) of M.V. LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 4 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 5 of35 Act.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR as well as the documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners/ the claimants or the "LRs of the deceased) are that on 10.01.2015, while returning from his office to his residence situated at C74/7 C, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi at about 10.00 p.m. upon reaching in front of ESI Hospital at OBlock, Mangol Puri, Delhi, an LIC agent, named Janardan Pandey had noticed that a truck bearing registration No. RJ18G3172 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') being driven by Rajesh S/o Soh Ram (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had hit victim Parveen, as a consequence of which, the victim had fell down on the road. It is the case of the petitioner that with the help of public persons present at the spot,the above named eyewitness Janardan Pandey had chased and successfully apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle and upon arrival of the police officials at the spot of occurrence in response to a phone call made at 100 number, he had handed over the driver of the offending vehicle to the PCR officials. After the accident, the victim was shifted by PCR van to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital(hereinafter referred to as SGM Hospital) where he was medically examined vide MLC No.701/2015 and had succumbed to injuries during the course of his treatment at about 1.45 a.m. on 11.01.2015.
2.1 The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Medical Officer Incharge (MOIC), Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital, Rohini, Delhi vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No.27/15 dated 11.01.2015 wherein the cause of death had been opined as hemorrhagic shock suffered as a result of hepatic injury consequent to blunt force impact sustained on the body of the deceased. It was further mentioned in the report of autopsy LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 5 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 6 of35 surgeon that all injuries detected in the body of the deceased were antemortem in nature, that is, had occurred immediately prior to his death and could have occurred in a road traffic accident as alleged.
3. R1/Rajesh, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and Sh.Surender S/o Sh. Mala Ram, who was the owner of the offending vehicle(hereinafter referred to Respondent No.2/R2) had not filed any written statement despite sufficient time being granted to them for filing of the same. Subsequently, R1 and R2 had failed to appear in the Court on several dates of hearing, therefore, during the course of recording of petitioner's evidence, R1 and R2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.10.2019.
3.1 The United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as Respondent no. 3/R3) had filed its written statement wherein it had been claimed that the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount as compensation in the present case because as per the DAR filed by the IO of the case, the permit of the vehicle bearing No.RJ18G 3172(truck) was not valid for Delhi on the date of accident, that is, on 10.01.2015 and R1/driver Rajesh was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of occurrence of the case accident. It had been further averred in the written statement of R3 that the IO had filed chargesheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and u/s 3/181 M.V. Act against R1 thereby establishing the defence of R3 to the effect that R1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence. R3 had also claimed in its defence that the driver of the offending vehicle had later on produced a driving licence which was found to be fake after verification and accordingly, the police had added section 471 IPC in the chargesheet filed against the R1 to hold him liable for the commission of offence of using a fake driving licence as genuine, and hence, the driver of the offending vehicle had LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 6 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 7 of35 committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, R3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It had also been claimed in the written statement of R3 that R1 and R2 had not intimated the insurance company/R3 about the occurrence of the case accident, and hence, they had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy due to which the insurance company/R3 has no liability to pay any compensation to petitioners. R3 had further reserved its right to take proper defences before the court as and when true facts leading to the present accident would come to its knowledge. It had been further stated in the written statement of R3 that R3 had issued a policy bearing No.1418013114P100739055 having its validity period commencing from 03.05.2014 and expiring on 02.05.2015 in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. RJ18G3172(truck) which was insured in the name of Sh. Surendra/R2 and the liability, if any, to compensate the victim of the case accident was subject to various objections as raised in the written statement and according to terms and conditions of the policy.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 12.12.2017: (1) Whether on 10.01.2015 at about 10:00 pm in front of ESI Dispensary, O Blcok, Mangol Puri, Delhi, one truck bearing registration No.RJ 18G3172, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Rajesh, hit Parveen and caused his death? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
5. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had examined three witnesses in LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 7 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 8 of35 support of their version of the case. Sh. Vijay Singh, father of the deceased had been examined as PW1, Ms. Priyanka, widow of the deceased had been examined as PW2 whereas Sh. Janardan Pandey, eyewitness had been examined as PW3 by the petitioners. No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
6. A perusal of the Court record reveals that R1/driver and R2/owner of the offending vehicle had not adduced any evidence in their defence and had also failed to appear in the court on several dates of hearings. Hence, they had been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.10.2019.
6.1 R3/United India Insurance Company Ltd. had examined Sh.S.P.Singh, Assistant Manager, Regional Office1, 7 th Floor Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001 as R3W1 in support of its version of the case.
7. I have heard the final arguments addressed by Sh. Amitabh Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Neeru Garg, learned counsel for R3/insurance company. None had appeared on behalf of R1(driver of the offending vehicle) and R2(owner of the offending vehicle) to address final arguments. My issuewise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES No. 1 (1) Whether on 10.01.2015 at about 10:00 pm in front of ESI Dispensary, O Blcok, Mangol Puri, Delhi, one truck bearing registration No.RJ 18G3172, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Rajesh, hit Parveen and caused his death? OPP LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 8 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 9 of35 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/ claimants.
8.1 The petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had examined three witnesses in support of their version of the case. Sh. Vijay Singh, father of the deceased had been examined as PW1, Ms. Priyanka, widow of the deceased had been examined as PW2 whereas Sh. Janardan Pandey, eyewitness had been examined as PW3 by the petitioners. No other witness had been examined by the petitioners/the LRs of deceased.
8.2 PW1 Sh. Vijay Singh, father of deceased Parveen Singh deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had stated that his son Parveen had died in a road traffic accident which had occurred on 10.01.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. in front of ESI Dispensary at OBlock, Mangol Puri, Delhi and had been caused by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.RJ18G3172 for which an FIR No.77/2015 was registered against the driver of the above mentioned offending truck with PS Mangol Puri, Delhi. He deposed that his son Parveen Singh was aged about 23 years old at the time of accident and he was a skilled labourer having income to the tune of Rs.14,000/ per month. He further deposed that his deceased son Parveen Singh was survived by four legal heirs, that is, Smt. Priyanka(wife), Khushi Kumari(minor daughter), Smt. Urmila Devi(mother) and PW1 himself (father). He also deposed that Smt. Priyanka Kumari, widow of his deceased son had remarried with one Bipin Kumar Sharma s/o Janeshwar Prasad Sharma in the year 2015 and one daughter was thereafter born out of her second marriage. He had relied upon the following documents in support of his testimony:
a) Photocopies of Aadhar cards of all the petitioners Ex.PW1/1(colly) (OSR).
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 9 of35
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 10 of35
b) Photocopies of election identity cards of deceased Parveen Singh
and Smt. Priyanka Devi Ex.PW1/2(colly)(OSR).
c) The DAR filed by the IO Ex.PW1/3(colly).
d) Photocopy of birth certificate of Khushi Kumari Mark A.
8.3 R1/driver and R2/owner of the offending vehicle had failed to appear in
the court to crossexamine PW1 and as such the crossexamination of PW1 on behalf of R1/driver as well as R2/owner of the offending vehicle was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine PW1.
8.4 In his crossexamination by Ms. Neeru Garg, learned counsel for R3/insurance Co., PW1 admitted that he was not an eyewitness of the case accident and he was not present at the spot. He stated that he was a farmer by profession and was earning Rs.3,000/ to Rs.4,000/ from his agricultural land admeasuring one Bigha situated at Bihar. He deposed that he had two sons, out of whom, one son had expired. He denied the suggestion that he was not dependent upon the income of his deceased son Parveen Kumar. He deposed that his deceased son was educated upto 7 th standard, however, he did not have in his possession any documentary proof regarding the education or the occupation as well as income of his son Parveen Kumar to the tune of Rs.14,000/ per month. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working in Delhi or that he was not earning Rs.14,000/ per month. He admitted that his daughter in law had remarried after the death of his son. He further admitted that his minor grand daughter Khushi Kumari was living with his daughter in law. He denied the suggestion that he(PW1) was maintaining his family.
8.5 PW2 Smt. Priyanka Kumari, widow of deceased Parveen deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein she had stated that her husband Parveen had died LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 10 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 11 of35 in a road traffic accident which had occurred on 10.01.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. in front of ESI Dispensary at OBlock, Mangol Puri, Delhi and had been caused by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.RJ18G3172 for which an FIR bearing No.77/2015 was registered against the driver of the above mentioned offending truck with PS Mangol Puri, Delhi. She deposed that her husband Parveen Singh was aged about 23 years old at the time of accident and he was a skilled labourer who used to earn Rs.14,000/ per month. She further deposed that the her deceased husband Parveen Singh was survived by four legal heirs, that is, she herself(wife), Khushi Kumari(minor daughter), Smt. Urmila Devi(mother) and Sh. Vijay Singh(father). She also deposed that she had remarried with one Bipin Kumar Sharma s/o Janeshwar Prasad Sharma in the year 2015 and one daughter was born out of her second marriage. In support of her deposition, she had relied upon her Aadhar card copy of which was proved on record as Ex.PW2/1 during the course of recording of her testimony.
8.6 R1/driver and R2/owner of the offending vehicle had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW2 and as such the crossexamination of PW2 on behalf of R1/driver as well as R2/owner of the offending vehicle was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine PW2.
8.7 In her crossexamination by Sh. Anil Garg, learned counsel for R3/insurance Co., PW2 admitted that she was not an eyewitness of the case accident and as such, she was not in a position to tell that on account of whose negligence, the case accident had occurred. She deposed that she had not filed any documentary proof regarding income of her deceased husband to the tune of Rs.14,000/ per month. She denied the suggestion that the accident in question had taken place on account of negligence of her husband.
8.8 PW3 Sh. Janardan Pandey, an eyewitness of the case accident had deposed that on 10.01.2015, after completing his work as an LIC agent, he was LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 11 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 12 of35 returning to his home on his bike bearing registration No.7123 from Mangol Puri side and at about 10.00 pm, upon reaching at ESI Corner, OBlock Chowk, Mangol Puri, Delhi, he had noticed that a truck bearing registration No. RJ18G 3172 coming from SBlock side and going towards CBlock side had hit against one person, as a result of which the said person had fell down on the road and the truck driver had fled away from the place of occurrence along with the offending truck after which he had chased the said truck with the help of public persons present near the spot of occurrence and had managed to apprehend the driver of the offending truck. He stated that he had made a call to police at 100 number and an FIR was registered on the basis of his statement. He further stated that the accident in question had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the truck who was driving the same at a very high speed.
8.9 R1/driver and R2/owner of the offending vehicle had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine PW3 and as such the crossexamination of PW3 on behalf of R1/driver as well as R2/owner of the offending vehicle was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine PW3.
8.10 In his crossexamination by Sh. Anil Garg, learned counsel for R3/insurance Co., PW3 stated that since he was driving his motorcycle,therefore, his concentration was straight. He clarified that the offending truck was moving in the same direction in which he was moving. He further stated that the offending truck had overtaken him and thereafter, the said truck was being plied by its driver ahead of his bike. He deposed that since he was at the left side of the road, therefore the things(vehicles) ahead of the truck were visible to him. He further deposed that he remembered the truck's registration number as he had noted down the same. He admitted that he remembered only numerical part of registration number of his motorcycle. Immediately thereafter, he again stated that the complete registration number of his motorcycle was DL8SW7123. He LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 12 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 13 of35 denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident. He further denied the suggestion that he had not apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to help the LRs of the deceased. He deposed that the police officials had reached at the spot of the accident in his presence and had arrested the driver of the offending vehicle. He stated that the police had subsequently called him to the police station. However, he had never been called again to the spot of occurrence by any police official.
8.11 R1 and R2 were exparte and had not availed the opportunity given to them by the Court to lead evidence in their defence.
8.12 R3/United India Insurance Company Ltd. had examined R3W1 Sh. S.P.Singh, Assistant Manager, Regional Office1, 7 th Floor Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001 by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/1 wherein he had deposed that the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ18G 3172(truck) was insured with R3/insurance company vide policy No.1418013114P100739055 having its validity commencing from 03.05.2014 and expiring on 02.05.2015 (midnight) in the name of Sh. Surender on certain terms and conditions. He further deposed that R1/Rajesh was driving the offending vehicle without holding any valid and effective driving licence which was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and since the IO of the case had filed challan against the above named driver for the commission of offence punishable u/s 3/181 M.V. Act, 1988, therefore, R3 was not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the petitioners. He stated that upon service of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, R1 and R2 had failed to produce any valid and effective driving licence of R1 and had even failed to furnish any reply to the said notice.
8.13 In his crossexamination by Sh. Amitabh Jha, learned counsel for LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 13 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 14 of35
petitioners, R3W1 had admitted that as per their record, the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. He expressed his inability to tell as to whether any independent investigator had been appointed by the insurance company to investigate the genuineness of driving licence of R1 or not. He voluntarily stated that the driving licence of R1 had already been verified by the IO which was a part of the DAR Ex.PW1/3. He stated that the verification report filed by the IO simply contained words that 'this D.L does not match with effective office record'. He admitted that the verification report did not incorporate the terminology 'not valid and effective'.
8.14 R1/driver and R2/owner of the offending vehicle had failed to appear in the court to crossexamine R3W1 and as such the crossexamination of R3W1 on behalf of R1/driver as well as R2/owner of the offending vehicle was treated as nil despite opportunity having been given to them to cross examine R3W1.
8.15 No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the cross examination of PW3 to discredit his above cited testimony which were capable of demolishing the case of the petitioners to the effect that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the death of victim Parveen had occasioned therefrom. PW3 had not been cross examined on behalf of R1/driver and R2/owner and hence, the testimony of PW3 in respect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 had remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Even otherwise, PW3 Sh. Janardan Pandey is a trustworthy witness who had withstood his crossexamination by learned counsel for the insurance company/R3. Therefore, through the testimony of PW3, it has been proved that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by R1 and thereby fatal injuries had been sustained by victim Parveen.
8.16 The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 14 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 15 of35
Manoj Dhingra, MOIC, Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital, Rohini, Delhi vide PMR No.27/15 dated 11.01.2015 wherein the cause of death had been opined as hemorrhagic shock as a result of hepatic injury consequent to blunt force impact sustained on the body of the deceased. It was further mentioned in the report of autopsy surgeon that all injuries detected in the body of the deceased were antemortem in nature, that is, had occurred immediately prior to his death and could have occurred in a road traffic accident as alleged.
8.17 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record including charge sheet and testimony of PW3 Sh. Janardan Pandey, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1 who was driving the offending vehicle/truck in a rash and negligent manner at the above said date, time and place, due to which the victim had fell down on the road and had sustained fatal injuries.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
9. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 9.1 In view of my findings on issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of demise of the victim Parveen in the above mentioned road traffic accident, I shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 15 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 16 of35 9.2 Petitioners have examined three witnesses in support of their version of
the case. Sh. Vijay Singh, father of the deceased had been examined as PW1 and had proved the that the year of birth of the deceased Parveen was 1991 as per his election identity card Ex.PW1/2. He had claimed that the deceased was earning emoluments to the tune of Rs.14,000/ as skilled labourer. However, in his crossexamination by learned counsel for the insurance company, PW1 had admitted that he was not having in his possession any proof regarding occupation and income of the deceased. Father of the deceased had further admitted in his crossexamination that his daughterinlaw Priyanka Kumari had remarried after the death of his son and his minor grand daughter, namely, Khushi Kumari was living with his daugtherinlaw. 9.3 PW2/Priyanka Kumari, widow of the deceased had admitted in her cross examination by learned counsel for the insurance company that she was similarly not having in her possession any documentary proof regarding income of her deceased husband.
9.4 Eye witness/PW3 Janardan Pandey had categorically stated in his examinationinchief that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver and with the help of public persons present at the spot, he himself had apprehended the driver of the offending truck along with his vehicle after chasing him to a short distance. 9.5 Although, father of the deceased had made a categoric deposition regarding monthly income of the deceased. However, neither father of the deceased nor the widow of the deceased had managed to produce any documentary proof of income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.14,000/ per month. It has been claimed by father of the deceased that deceased was a skilled labourer, however, no certificate of skill training, if any, acquired by the deceased has been placed on record by his father or his wife and as such there LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 16 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 17 of35 is no evidence on record to arrive at a finding to the effect that deceased was a skilled labouer. As per the DAR, filed by the IO, deceased Parveen was a resident of A/P, Q9/82, Mangol Puri, Delhi at the time of accident and accordingly he is entitled to minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, which was Rs.8,632/.
10. Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made 10.1 In this regard, reference should be made to the Constitutional Bench Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
10.2 In the said judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 17 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 18 of35 an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 10.3 In the case in hand, the deceased was selfemployed and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
10.4 In the present case, as discussed above, the deceased was a self employed/salaried person aged about 24 years at the time of his death. In view LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 18 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 19 of35 of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to addition of 40% as future prospects to his established income as he was below 40 years of age at the time of his death.
10.5 The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs.12,084.8/ (monthly income of Rs.8,632/ + 40% of monthly income i.e Rs.3,452.8/ = Rs.12,084.8/).
11. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
11.1 Claimants are the mother, father, wife of the deceased and his minor daughter. PW1/the father of the deceased has clarified that he was earning Rs.
3,000/ to Rs. 4,000/ per month from his agricultural land admeasuring 1 Bigha. However, this fact does not have any bearing on the entitlement of parents of the deceased to receive compensation from this Tribunal regarding demise of the deceased in a road traffic accident.
11.2 In this context, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a catena of judgments that although parents of a deceased/victim of a road traffic accident may not be dependent on the income of the deceased at the time of his demise in a road traffic accident, however, with advancing age, they were likely to become financially as well as emotionally dependent on their child.
11.3 Similar observations were made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indrawati & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Singh & Ors. MAC. APP No.623/2019 decided on 08.01.2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that the parents of a deceased/victim of road traffic accident must be considered as dependents on their deceased child even if the parents were not actually dependent on the deceased child at the time of occurrence of the accident in LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 19 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 20 of35 question because after reaching a certain age, the parents of a deceased victim of road traffic accident were likely to become emotionally as well as financially dependent upon their child due to their old age and loss of earning capacity. Observations made in paras 12, 20 and 23 of the judgement are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced herein below: "12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the deceased are considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain themselves and the law imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of the accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.
20. In view of the law well settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court holds that the parents of the deceased child are considered as dependents for computation of compensation.
The principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak v. Pritam Singh, ILR (2010) 5 Del 463, would not apply to the claim for compensation by the parents in respect of their child, as it is in the present case. The principles relating to the loss to the estate referred to in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh Adhlak (supra) would also not apply in respect of the claim of a spouse for compensation in respect of death of his/her spouse, as well as children's claim for compensation in respect of death of their parents. In LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 20 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 21 of35 that view of the matter, the principles relating to the loss to the estate shall apply only to claimants other than parents, children and spouse.
23. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,131/ per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.6,24,607.20. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/ towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses which is upheld. The total compensation is computed as Rs.6,80,000/ (Rs.6,79,607.20 rounded off)."
11.4 Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that Smt. Priyanka Kumari, widow of the deceased may not be considered as a legal heir of the deceased and no share be granted to her in the award amount as she has already remarried.
11.5 The issue of determination of share of the widow of a deceased victim of road traffic accident after her remarriage had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dincy Devassy v/s United India Insurance Co. & Others, MAC.APP. No. 26 of 2019 Decided On, 12 December 2019, wherein it had been categorically held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the right of a widow to claim her share in the compensation amount likely to be awarded by MACT in respect of demise of her husband in a road traffic accident would not abate upon her remarriage and she would have all rights to claim compensation for the demise of her spouse despite having remarried unless she herself relinquishes her share in compensation in favour of some other legal heir of her deceased husband. Relevant extract of the observations made in para 3 of the judgment is noteworthy in this context and is reproduced herein below:
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 21 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 22 of35
"3. The calculation of loss of dependency was on the basis of her dependency on her deceased husband; her loss is equal to the loss of dependency suffered by her parentsinlaw. Her decision to remarry was entirely her personal choice, over which nobody can have any say. Her right to claim compensation crystallized upon her husband's life being tragically snatched away in the motor accident. Therefore, simply because she has now remarried, her claim does not abate or lessen. Who can judge whether the second marriage was not a compromise because of her personal circumstances and whether it would have the same value emotionally and psychologically as the first marriage. Her entitlement fructified when the dependency was calculated.
Therefore as an aggrieved widow, she would be entitled to a share of compensation apropos "loss of dependency" of equal amount to her parentsinlaw, who had lost their son. The learned counsel for the parents of the deceased, has nothing to say to the contrary."
11.6 In the light of aforecited opinion expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dincy Devassy v/s United India Insurance Co. & Others, it can be safely concluded that the second marriage of a widow upon demise of her husband in a road traffic accident would not terminate her entitlement to receive compensation in respect of demise of her husband in a road traffic accident and her share would have to be calculated considering her as one of the dependents of the deceased without taking into account the factum of her remarriage particularly in cases where such widow had not relinquished her share in favour of her in laws or other legal heirs of her deceased husband. 11.7 It is also pertinent to mention that even if petitioner No.2 Priyanka Kumari had specifically appeared before this Tribunal and had made a statement before this tribunal for the purpose of relinquishing her share in the compensation likely to be awarded by this Court in favour of other legal heirs of the deceased, then also, the same would have no bearing upon the number of LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 22 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 23 of35 dependents to be considered by this Court while passing the award as well as on the quantum of share of each dependent at the time of disbursal or apportionment of the award amount amongst the legal heirs of the deceased. My views in this regard are fortified by the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided case of Renu Rani Shrivastava VS. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8248/2019 @ SLP(C) No3660/2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the relinquishment of her share in the award amount by the widow of the deceased in favour of her in law could at best be an internal family arrangement of the parties and the grant of compensation by the MACT or by any other Court in respect of accidental death of a person will not be affected by the family arrangement of the parties inasmuch as the compensation as per law has to be awarded by the Court in favour of the dependents. The relevant extract of observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 23.10.2019 is reproduced herein below:
"...The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company with regard to the relinquishment of her share in favour of the other claimants and consequently she is not entitled to compensation, cannot be accepted. It is in between the family members to make arrangement with regard to the family affairs. The grant of compensation by the MACT or by the Court in respect of accidental death of a person will not be affected by the family arrangement of the parties inasmuch as the compensation as per law has to be awarded by the Court in favour of the dependents. The internal family matter of the parties will not affect the award of compensation. Accordingly, the arguments of the respondent/Insurance Company are not sustainable. Compensation of Rs.2,06,75,000/ in toto is awarded. The same shall be shared by the family members of the deceased in the same proportion as is awarded by the MACT."
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 23 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 24 of35 11.8 In the light of aforecited opinion expressed by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of Dincy Devassy(supra) as well as the opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Renu Rani Shrivastav(supra), it can be safely concluded that the remarriage of petitioner No.2 Priyanka Kumari would have no bearing upon the quantum of her share in the awarded amount. Accordingly, the award amount is apportioned as under:
11.9 Applying the ratio of above cited observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Indrawati and Anr. (Supra); Dincy Devassy (supra) and Renu Rani Shrivastav (supra), it can be safely concluded that even if one of the parents of the deceased/victim of the road traffic accident was having a source of income at the time of demise of the victim, then also, in advanced stage of their life both the parents of the deceased were likely to become financially as well as emotionally dependent upon the deceased, and therefore, the parents of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation as dependents upon the deceased under Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, the widow of the deceased is also entitled to seek compensation for demise of her spouse in a road traffic accident despite having remarried during the pendency of a Motor Accident Claim Petition. 11.10 In the light of my foregoing discussion, both parents of the deceased, his wife Priyanka Kumari and his minor daughter Baby Khushi Kumari are entitled to compensation from this Tribunal in respect of demise of deceased Parveen Singh in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was survived by four legal heirs and in such circumstances the deceased was likely to save ¼ of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute rest of the ¾ of his income towards his household expenses.
12. Selection of multiplier:
12.1 As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 24 years at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 24 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 25 of35 Pranay Sethi (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "18" as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
13. Loss of financial dependency 13.1 In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioners comes to Rs.19,57,737.6/ [i.e. Rs.12,084.8/ (per month income of the deceased) X12 X18 (multiplier) X 3/4 (dependency after deducting 1/4 of income towards personal and living expenses)].
14. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
14.1 In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss to the estate of the deceased and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses.
15. Consortium {Spousal Consortium/Parental Consortium/Filial Consortium}
15.1 The deceased was unmarried and the petitioners/claimants are his parents. It is now a settled law in terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, date of decision 18.09.2018: 2018(8) SCJ 338:2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Uttrakhand Transport Corporation Vs. Jyoti Sardana, MAC.APP.920/2017, date of decision 03.04.2019 that the compensation under the head of consortium is required to be awarded to all the claimants to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ each. In the present case, there were two legal heirs of the deceased at the time of his demise who were the mother and father of the LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 25 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 26 of35 deceased, hence, Rs. 1,60,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ x 4) is being granted under the said head. My views in this regard are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in cases titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Manorama Aggarawal and Ors., MAC.APP. 250/2015, decided on 09.01.2020 and Om Prakash and Ors vs Ved Prakash and Anr, MAC.APP 114/2019 date of decision 28.01.2020. My views are also substantiated by the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 30933099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410.
16. LOSS OF LOVE and AFFECTION 16.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the latest case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 30933099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 after referring to its another decision of threejudge bench in case titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410 inter alia held as follows :
"34. The ThreeJudge Bench in the above case approved the comprehensive interpretation given to the expression 'consortium' to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Three Judge Bench however further laid down that 'loss of love and affection' is comprehended in 'loss of consortium', hence, there is no justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' as a separate head.
35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' which have been now further reiterated by threeJudge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 26 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 27 of35 now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection'. ................................................................................... ................................................................................... ...................................................................................
47. In result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The award of compensation under the conventional head 'loss of love and affection' is set aside........................"
16.2 In view of the abovesaid discussion and the latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 30933099 of 2020, decided on 07.09.2020 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur and Ors., (2020) SCC Online 410, no amount of compensation can be awarded under the said head of 'loss of love and affection'. Hence, no amount is being granted under the said head.
16.3 Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioners thus comes to Rs.21,47,737.6/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Loss of financial dependency 19,57,737.6/ 2 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/
5. Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
Total Rs. 21,47,737.6/ [Rounded off to Rs.21,47,738/] (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Eight Only).
16.4 In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 27 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 28 of35
amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 20.01.2017 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 20.01.2017 till realisation of the compensation amount.
16.5 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
17. Liability 17.1 In the present matter, the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of occurrence of the accident in question and the insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Company Limited was live and was valid in favour of R2 on the date of occurrence of the accident, however, there is a breach of the said insurance policy. In the present case, it has been proved on record that Respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving licence authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident and the driving licence placed on record by R1 Rajesh was found to be forged and fabricated during the investigation conducted by the investigating officer. In this context, charge sheet has been filed against R1 for the commission of offence by use of forged documents, that is, driving licence as genuine and driving a motor vehicle without valid driving licence punishable U/s 471 IPC and 3/181 of M.V. Act and thus it can be prima facie concluded from the charge filed by the IO in the criminal court LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 28 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 29 of35 that IO was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of occurrence of the case accident. Nevertheless, the insurance company/R3 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners/claimants and it can very well recover the said amount from R1/Driver/Rajesh and R2/Surender, that is, owner of the offending vehicle as per rules. In facts, R3/Insurance co. is granted recovery rights against R1/driver and R2/ owner of the offending vehicle.
17.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Reliance General Insurance co/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 21,47,738/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
18. Joint statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 22.03.2022 regarding their savings bank a/c with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 29 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 30 of35 Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 18.1 It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, an amount of Rs.7,47,738/ be kept in the form of FDR in the name of Baby Khushi Kumari till she attains the age of majority, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP). An amount of Rs.5,00,000/ be given to Smt. Priyanka Kumari, wife of the deceased, out of which Rs.50,000/ be released to her in her bank a/c no.20324093716 with SBI, Patharkatti, Bihar, that is, the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDR for a period of one month to 40 months of equal amount with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal. An amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs each be given to parents of the deceased, namely, Sh.Vijay Singh and Smt. Urmila Dev, out of which an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each be released to them in their bank a/c no.39044077167 (Urmila Devi) and bank a/c no.39012618379 (Vijay Singh), that is, the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs each be kept in the form of FDRs for a period of one month to 40 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 30 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 31 of35 the Tribunal.
18.2 It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 31 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 32 of35 claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
19. Relief 19.1 As discussed above, R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.21,47,738/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 20.01.2017 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and their advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
19.2 R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. 19.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.3 for compliance within the granted time.
19.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 32 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 33 of35 Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
19.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order 10dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 22.03.2022 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
20. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
on 27th October, 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 33 of35
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 34 of35
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 10.01.2015
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Parveen Singh
3. Age of the deceased: About 24 years at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed.
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.8,632/ per month(minimum wages)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Priyanka Kumari 29 Years Wife
(ii) Baby Khushi Kumari 8 Years Daughter
(iii) Smt. Urmila Devi 74 Years Mother
(iv) Sh. Vijay Singh 58 Years Father
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 8,632/ (as per minimum
wages)
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 2,839.2/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/4
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,063.6/
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,08,763.2/
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs. 19,57,737.6/ F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/ (40,000x4) LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 34 of35 LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 35 of35 (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.21,47,737.6/ (rounded of (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) Rs.21,47,738/)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 8,67,387.8/ (rounded of award (M) Rs. 8,67,388/)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.30,15,126/
23. Award amount released Rs. 1,50,000/
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.28,65,126/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) clause 29 of MCTAP.
26. Next date for compliance of the award. 26.11.2022.
(Clause 31)
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
on 27th October, 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LRs of Parveen Vs. Rajesh & Ors. Page 35 of35