Delhi District Court
Jessy Mathew & Ors. vs . Sudama & Ors. on 4 July, 2018
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
Suit No. 401/15
MACT No. 357313/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-003340-2015
1. Ms. Jessy Mathew
W/o Late Shri Sam Mathew,
2. Sh. Anup Sam Mathew,
S/o Late Shri Sam Mathew,
3. Ms. Ninu Sam
D/o Late Shri Sam Mathew,
All Permanent Residents of:-
R/o 'Bathania', TC 65/2134,
C DIT Road, Chiranjali Studio Junction,
Tiruvallam, Trivandrum,
Kerala-695027
........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sudama
S/o Sh. Ram Mehar,
R/o VPO-Rathdhana,
District Sonipat, Haryana
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 1 of 25
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
...........Respondent No.1
(Driver )
2. Delhi Agricultural Marketting Board, 9, Institutional Area, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, Delhi ...........Respondent No. 2 (Owner) Date of filing of DAR : 22.09.2015 Arguments heard on : 21.05.2018 Date of passing of Award : 04.07.2018 Present: Ms. Shashi Panwar proxy counsel for Sh.
C. Raja Ram, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate Counsel for respondent no. 1 Sh. Chander Shekhar proxy counsel for Sh. Karunesh Tandan, Advocate counsel for respondent no. 2 FORM- V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 2 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 12.05.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by 14.05.2015 the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal. (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by No Insurance the Investigating Officer to the case Insurance Company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under Section No Insurance 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan case Magistrate. (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 22.09.2015 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on the No insurance Insurance Company. (Clause 11) case
7. Date of service of DAR on the 22.09.2015 claimant(s). (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR -
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated No Insurance Officer by the Insurance Company. case (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of No Insurance the Designated Officer of the Insurance case Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 3 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
Insurance Company submitted his case report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the Insurance Company No Insurance admitted the liability? If so, whether the case Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or NA deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) to -
the offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the award. 04.07.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?(Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 27.03.2018 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).(Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant(s) Yes on produced the passbook of their savings 02.07.2018 bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card? (Clause MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 4 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned in Claimant(s)(Clause 27) award
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of Jessy Mathew, the claimant(s) and the address of the AC no. bank with IFSC Code.(Clause 27) 37602727202, Anup Sam Mathew AC No. 34015229986 Ninu Sam AC no.
37546221357 SBI Thiruvananthapur a IFSC-SBIN-
0060333
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?(Clause 27) 26 Whether the claimant(s) were Yes on examined at the time of passing of the 27.03.2018 award to ascertain his/their financial condition? (Clause AWARD:
1. The detail accident report (DAR) in case FIR No. 287/2015, u/s 279/304-A IPC, PS IP Estate has been filed by the Investigating Officer in relation to fatal injuries caused to Mr. Sam Mathew in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.05.2015.
(i) Subsequently, petitioners have also filed a MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 5 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
claim petition claiming a compensation of ` 65,00,000/-. Claim petition has been tagged with the DAR.
2. Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR and the petition are that on 12.05.2015, deceased was walking on footpath near Delhi Sachivalya between Gate no. 1 and 2. It was alleged that at about 4.00 PM, when he was walking on footpath, offending vehicle Toyota Innova Car bearing No. DL 48AV-2610 came at fast speed from ITO side towards Delhi Sachivalya and rammed into the footpath on which deceased was walking. Consequently, deceased was thrown towards the wall. Thereafter, driver of the car hit in the road divider. It was also alleged that accident had taken place due to rash and negligence of driver of the Innova Car. Though, the injured was taken to hospital but he succumbed to his injuries.
(ii) It was alleged that the Innova Car was being driven by the respondent no. 1 and registered in the name of respondent no. 2.
3. Both the respondents contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement.
(i) Respondent no. 1 took the plea that the accident had not taken place by his car; rather deceased met with an accident with some unknown vehicle and his car had been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that since MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 6 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
he was having a valid driving license, liability if any, respondent no. 2 is liable to indemnify the same.
(ii) Respondent no. 2 took the plea that accident had taken place due to negligence of deceased as he was walking on wrong side of the footpath. It was submitted that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of respondent No.1.
4. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, vide order dated 28.01.2016, following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the deceased Sam Mathew had died of injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 12.05.2015 within the jurisdiction of PS IP Estate, New Delhi and due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Regn. no. DL 4C-AV-2610 by respondent no. 1 Sudama?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
5. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined following witnesses:
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 7 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
PW1 Sh. Jessy Methew, wife of deceased PW2 Sh. Vidya Sagar, proved the salary record of the deceased PW3 Sh. Yogender Singh, Eye witness
(i) In rebuttal, respondents did not lead any evidence
6. On completion of evidence led by both the parties, statement of petitioners were recorded on 27.03.2018, in compliance of clause 27 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & ors. vs. Jaivir Singh & ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017 wherein petitioner no. 1 testified that she needs between about ` 30,000/- to ` 32,000/- per month for her house hold expenses, whereas petitioner no. 2 testified that she needs about ` 10,000/- per month for her personal expenses.
7. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for petitioners and respondents, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. Though respondent no. 2 was permitted to file written submission within two weeks but respondent no. 2 did not avail the opportunity.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 8 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sam Mathew had died of injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 12.05.2015 within the jurisdiction of PS IP Estate, New Delhi and due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Regn. no. DL 4C-AV-2610 by respondent no. 1 Sudama?
FINDING:-
9. Though no serious contention has been raised on the aspect of rashness and negligence, yet I deem it appropriate to deal with this aspect also.
(i) It is pertinent to state that both the respondents took a contradictory plea in their written statement as respondent no. 1 took a specific plea that no accident had been caused by his vehicle and deceased was hit by unknown vehicle. He further took the plea that his vehicle had been falsely implicated in the accident. Though respondent no. 2 did not dispute the involvement of vehicle in the accident but took the plea that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of deceased. From the abovesaid contradictory plea, it can be safely be culled out that one of the respondents had taken a false plea just to deprived the claimants from lawful compensation. Such conduct was not expected from the MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 9 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
respondents particularly when the respondent no. 2 is a Govt. body and respondent no. 1 is an employee of respondent no.
2.
(ii) Now coming to the testimony of PW3 Yogender Singh, eye witness. PW3 testified that he witnessed the accident and deposed that the offending car came from Vikas Marg side towards Delhi Secretariat and was being driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. He further testified that the said car hit in the pavement and thereafter hit a pedestrian and thrown the said person towards wall, consequently, he sustained multiple injuries. No doubt PW3 in his cross-examination deposed that deceased and offending vehicle were moving in opposite direction but this is not helpful to the respondents in any manner as deceased was walking on footpath. Mere fact that PW3 did not recollect the detail of the driver is not sufficient to hold that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of respondent no. 1. It is pertinent to state that neither of the respondents took the plea that respondent no. 1 was not the driver of the offending vehicle.
(iii) Though PW3 was cross examined at length but nothing could be extracted which may help the respondents to show that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 or that the accident had taken place due to the rashness or negligence of the MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 10 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
deceased.
(iv) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that testimony of PW3 is sufficient to hold that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
10. Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to refer the judgment titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on October 30, 2017. Hon`ble Bench reconsidered all the previous judgments relating to just compensation under Motor Vehicle Act including Sarla Verma & ors. vs. DTC & another, 2009 (6) SCC 121; Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan & anr (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (2013) 9 SCC
54.
(i) After analyzing all the precedents, Hon`ble Bench held as under:-
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 11 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 12 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein-
before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be ` 15,000/-, ` 40,000/- and ` 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
(ii) Now, I proceed to examine the facts of the case at hand.
Income of Deceased:
(i) Deceased was working in the office of Commissioner of industries Patpar Ganj, Delhi. Petitioners have filed Form-16 of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 and same is Ex. PW2/2. As per Ex. PW2/2, his MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 13 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
annual gross salary of ` 5,32,362/- and on the said amount he had paid tax of ` 10,337/-. Since actual income means minus tax, his annual income is assessed ` 5,22,025/- (` 5,32,362/- -- ` 10,337/-) .
Addition towards Future Prospects:-
(i) As per driving license, date of birth of deceased was 26.02.1960, since the accident taken place on 12.05.2015, he was 55 years 2 months and 16 days old at the time of his death.
(ii) Since deceased was above 50 years but below 60 years old at time of his death and he was a permanent employee, in view of the law laid down in Praney Sethi case (supra), petitioners are entitled for 15% addition towards future prospects. Accordingly, a sum of ` 78,303/- is added in the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:-
(i). Deceased left behind the petitioners.
Though petitioner no. 2 is 28 years old but he is pursuing his Ph.D., thus all are considered dependent on the income of deceased. Since three were persons were dependant on the MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 14 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
income of deceased, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 1/3rd of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Selection of multiplier:
(i) Since deceased was above 55 years old and less than 56 years at the time of his death, in view of law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra) and approved by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), multiplier of 11 shall be apply in this matter.
Loss of income:-
(i) In view of the above, loss of income is calculated as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT (IN `)
Annual Income of deceased 5,22,025/-
15% addition of towards future prospects 78,303/-
Total 6,00,328/-
Less 1/3rd % deduction towards personal 200109/-
and living expenses
Total 4,00,219/-
Selection of multiplier 11
Total loss of income 44,02,409/-
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 15 of 25
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
11. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:-
(i) In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), a sum of ` 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and ` 15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and ` 40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium is awarded.
(ii) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 22.09.2015 till realization of the amount.
(iii) Accordingly, claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of deceased as under:
NAME OF THE HEAD AMOUNT
(IN ` )
Loss of Income 44,02,409/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 40,000/-
Total 44,72,409/-
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 16 of 25
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
Round off: ` 44,73,000/-
(Rupees Forty Four Lac Seventy Three Thousands Only)
(iv) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 22.09.2015 till realization of the amount.
Apportionment of award:-
(i) Being the wife of deceased, petitioner no. 1 shall get 50% of the award amount; being the daughter of the deceased, petitioner no. 3 shall get 30% of the award amount and being son of the deceased, petitioner no. 2 shall get 20% of the award amount. Their individual share is tabulated as under:-
Name of the Relation Percentage Amount claimant with of (In ` ) deceased award amount Smt. Jessy Mathew Wife 50% 22,36,500/-
Sh. Anup Sam Son 20% 8,94,600/- Mathew Ninu Sam Daughter 30% 13,41,900/ 12. Disbursement:- (i) Statement of petitioners were recorded on MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 17 of 25
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
27.03.2018 in compliance of Clause 26 of FAO No. 842 of 2003 decided by Hon`ble High Court of Delhi on December 15, 2017, wherein petitioner no. 1 testified that she needs between about ` 30,000/- to ` 32,000/- per month for her house hold expenses whereas petitioner no. 3 testified that she needs about ` 10,000/- per month for her personal expenses.
(ii) In view of statement of petitioner no. 1, on realization of award amount, a sum of ` 2,36,500/- plus entire interest be released to her from her share i.e. ` 22,36,500/- and the balance amount of ` 20 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 20 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1,00,000/- each for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years and so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 18 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
However, petitioner shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 23,650/- from the sum of ` 2,36,500/- from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iii) On realization of the award amount, a sum of ` 94,600/- plus entire interest be released to petitioner no. 2 and the balance amount of ` 8 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 8 fixed deposits in his name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1,00,000/- for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner no. 2 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 9,460/- from the above said amount from the bank located within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
(iv) On realization of the award amount, a sum MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 19 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
of ` 1,41,900/- plus entire interest be released to petitioner no. 3 and the balance amount of ` 12 lac in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, shall be put in 12 fixed deposits in her name in a nationalized bank of equal amount of ` 1,00,000/- for a period of six months, one year, one and a half year, two years so on. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. However, petitioner no. 3 shall have liberty to seek the release of ` 14,190/- from the above said amount from the bank lo- cated within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal itself.
13. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon`ble High Court in MAC Appeal No. 422/2009, titled Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & ors and FAO No. 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi & ors vs. Jaivir Singh & ors decided on December 15, 2017:-
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 20 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit account of the victims i.e. saving bank account(s) of the claimants shall be individual saving bank account and shall not a joint account.
(ii) 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 the bank to the claimants.
(iii) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System(ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(iv) The maturity amount of the FDR be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimants near the place of their residence.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(vi) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 21 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
claimants 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 claimants shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Tribunal for compliance.
14. In compliance of the directions given by Hon`ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 15, 2017, Summary of the Award in the prescribed format- IV A is as under:-
SUMMARY OF AWARD
(i) Date of accident 12.05.2015
(ii) Name of the Sam Methew deceased
(iii) Age of the injured 55+ years
(iv) Occupation of the Govt. Job deceased
(v) Income of the ` 5,22,025/- per annum deceased
(vi) Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation 1. Smt. Jessy Mathew 54 Yr. Wife 2. Sh. Anup Sam Mathew 28 Yr Son 3. Ninu Sam 25 Yr Daughter MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 22 of 25
Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal (IN `)
7. Income of the deceased (A) 5,22,025/- p.a
8. Less Personal expenses of the 2,00,109/-
deceased (C) (1/3rd)
9. Monthly Loss of dependency NA
(A+B)-C= D
10. Annual Loss of dependency NA
11. Multiplier (E) 11
12. Total Loss of dependency -
13. Medical Expenses (G) -
14. Add-Future Prospects (B) 78,303/-
15. Compensation for loss of love and -
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) 40,000/-
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) 15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K)
19 TOTAL COMPENSATION 44,73,000/-
(F + G + H + I + J + K = L) (Rounded off)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%
21. Interest amount upto to the date of 11,20302/-
award (M)
(02 yr 09 months 12 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L + M) 55,93,302/-
23. Award amount released As mentioned
para No. 12
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned
para No. 12
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In the form of
amount to the claimant(s). (Clause 29) FDRs as MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 23 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
mentioned in para No.12
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 05.08.2018 (Clause 31) LIABILITY TO PAY:-
15. Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 and registered in the name of respondent no. 2, both shall be severally and jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
(iv) In view of aforesaid discussion, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
16. Since, the offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no. 2, respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the award amount of ` 44,73,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 22.09.2015 till realization of the amount with Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under in-
timation to the petitioners failing which the respondent no. 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 24 of 25 Jessy Mathew & Ors. Vs. Sudama & Ors.
(i). Driver and owner of the offending vehicle are 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 amount to the petitioners/claimants and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days from to- day.
(ii) A copy of this judgment be sent to Respondent No.2, for compliance within the time granted.
(iii) Nazir is directed to place a report on record on August 05, 2018 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(iv) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon`ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(v) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court
on this 04th day of July, 2018 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
Judge, MACT-1 (Central),
Digitally signed by
THC, Delhi/v
PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR
KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2018.07.04
JAIN 18:16:25 +0530
MACT No. 357313/16 (Old Suit No. 401/15) Page No. 25 of 25