Delhi District Court
Gunja Rai And Ors. vs Kamlesh Aggarwal And Ors. on 10 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KUMAR GARG :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS :
NEW DELHI
MACT No. 299/2021
Gunja Rai and ors. Vs Kamlesh Aggarwal and ors.
1. Gunja Rai,
W/o deceased Sh. Chandramohan Rai,
2. Khushee Rai,
D/o deceased Chandramohan Rai,
3. Krishan Mohan Rai,
S/o Late Sh. Chandramohan Rai,
4. Praveen Kumar Rai,
S/o Deceased Sh. Chandramohan Rai,
5. Bindu Rai, the mother of the deceased.
W/o Sh. Bhagwan Rai,
All resident of.-
Village Ahirauli, Tamalpura,
Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh - 233227.
......... (LRs of the deceased)
........... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kamlesh Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Goverdhan,
R/o Ward No. 5, Godhwa Jafarpura,
Mohammadabad, Ghazipur,
Uttar Pradesh-233227
........... (Driver-cum-owner)
MACT No. 42/22,
Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.;
FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 23
2 National Insurance Company Limited,
E-2/5, Main Market Road,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.
..... (Insurance Co.)
...[Respondents)
Date of Institution : 24.12.2021
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 10.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 10.11.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. Claimants have filed the present petition under Section 166 and 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the unfortunate death of the deceased Chandramohan Rai, a homeopathic doctor occurred on 02.11.2021 at about 07.00 am at Ahirauli Chatti, Ghazipur due to rash and negligent act of driving of the offending vehicle being driven by the respondent no. 1, the driver cum owner while deceased was sitting in a Tea stall/ Gomati situated at Ahirauli Chatti, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh where he was declared brought dead. The deceased has left behind four five legal heirs behind him.
2. The facts of the present case need not having any big canvas:-
"On 02.11.2021 at about 07.00 am, the deceased Chandramohan and some other persons were MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 2 of 23 sitting in a Tea Stall/ Gomati stituated at Ahirauli Chatti, Ghazipur. Suddenly a truck bearing no. Up-61- T-7291 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner came from Bharoli side and hit/ crushed the persons who were sitting at the said place. Deceased Chandramohan Rai was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh where he was declared brought dead."
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. The respondents have filed their respective replies in response to the petition.
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the driver cum owner/ respondent no. 1 wherein he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case whereas the accident was occurred on account of circumstances. He submitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-61-T-7291 and he was having valid and effective driving license and the said vehicle was fully insured with the respondent no. 2 AIR National Insurance Company Ltd.
5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the insurance company/ respondent no. 2 wherein it has stated that the respondent no. 1 are not residents within the territorial jurisdiction of the court nor the policy MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 3 of 23 issuing office of the answering respondent exists within the jurisdiction of this tribunal. It has also submitted that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. UP=61-T-7291 (Truck) was not holding a valid and effective driving license and there was no valid permit of the alleged offending vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, if there is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. However, it has been admitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-16- T7921 was insured in the name of Sh. Kamlesh Aggawal vide policy bearing no.
45210131216360000888 for the period from 24.06.2021 to 23.06.2022.
6. After completion of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 21.05.2022, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the deceased succumbed to the injuries in a road accident on 02.11.2021 at about 07.00 am at Ahirauli Chatti, Ghazipur due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-61-T-7921 (Truck) being driven and owned by the respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 3?....OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation the LRs of the deceased are entitled and from whom? ..... OPP.
3. Relief.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 4 of 23
7. In order to substantiate their contentions, petitioners have examined one witness i.e., PW 1/ Gunja Rai, the wife of the deceased. Two more witness i.e., PW 2 Ramji Rai and PW 3 Sh. Kaushar Ali have also been examined.
8. PW 1 Gunja Rai is the wife of the deceased. She is not the eye witness. However, she has narrated the facts of the incident. She has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of the aadhar card of the deponent. (OSR).
2. Ex PW 1/2 is the copy of the aadhar card of the daughter of the deponent. (OSR).
3. Ex. PW 1/3 is the copy of the aadhar card of the son of the deponent. (OSR).
4. Ex. PW 1/4 is the copy of the aadhar slip of the son of the deponent. (OSR).
5. Ex. PW 1/5 is the copy of the aadhar card of the mother in law of the deponent. (OSR).
6. Ex. PW 1/6 is the copy of the aadhar card of the deceased. (OSR).
7. Ex. PW 1/7 is the educational proof o the deceased. (OSR). Running into seven pages.
8. Ex. PW 1/8 is the original register of patient maintained by deceased. (Objected too)
9. Ex. PW 1/9 is the certified copy of the charge sheet MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.;
FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 5 of 23 collectively running into five pages.
10. Ex. PW 1/10 is the certified copy of the FIR running into three pages.
11. Ex. PW 1/11 is the certified copy of the site plan running into two pages.
12. Ex. PW 1/12 is the certified copy of the postmortem report running into four pages.
13. Ex. PW 1/13 is the certified copy of the panchnama running into three pages.
9. This witness was put to the test of cross examination wherein she has stated that her father in law is alive. She deposed that her father in law is aged about 60-70 years. She further deposed that she has one brother in law namely Manmohan who is aged about 30 years and he is not doing any work. She further deposed that her father in law is a Homeopathic doctor. She is not the eye witness to the accident in question. She has not placed on record any document regarding the income of her deceased husband. Voluntarily she deposed that whatever documents she had, same have been filed on record. She denied that her deceased husband was not gainfully employed or earning any amount from any avocation. She denied that the register Ex. PW 1/8 placed on record does not pertain to his deceased husband. She denied that the said register pertains to the record maintained by her father in law who has been practicing as Homeopath doctor.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 6 of 23
10.PW 2 is the summoned witness. He deposed about the factum and occurrence of the accident. He deposed that on the said date, time and place, deceased along with seven- eight persons were taking tea at the crossing at a tea stall. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle coming from the eastern side had suddenly turned towards the tea stall and hit the people sitting there. Some of the persons sitting there after seeing the truck moving suddenly had jumped and remaining persons were got injured and crushed. He deposed that in the accident six persons were expired including Dr. Chandramohan, since deceased.
During cross examination he deposed that some other person from public had called the police by dialing 100 number within half an hour. He deposed that he was sitting at the opposite side of the spot of the accident in a tea stall. He saw the said truck for the first time only on hearing the sound of accident when it had already hit the other Goomti. The police had not recorded his statement. He denied that he was not present at the spot of accident as there is no mention of his name as eye witness in the FIR or the charge sheet. He remained there till the post mortem was conducted.
11.PW 3 Kaushal Ali was also the summoned witness who deposed that he knew the deceased for the last ten years. He had taken the treatment from him for three MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 7 of 23 years for paralysis as deceased was known as expert of curing paralysis. He used to pay Rs. 1200/- per visit to the deceased. He deposed that he had visited the deceased 10-12 times and taken the treatment for about six months. He deposed that he has been cured from his paralysis after taking the treatment from the deceased.
During the cross examination, nothing substantial has come out from the mouth of this witness.
12.Ld. Counsel for the respondents has not examined any witness in their defence.
13.I have heard the arguments at bar and gone through the evidence brought and examined by the parties and my issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 114.It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver. In a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 8 of 23 the basis of enquiry. Though it is an admitted legal position that the negligence on the part of driver with respect to the use of vehicle needs to be established but the same is to be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III(2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
15.In the present case, the factum of accident has not been disputed. The testimony of PW 1 has almost remained unchallenged. Insurance company has not examined any witness. Insurance company has only taken the defense that the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license and valid permit at the time of accident. However, it has conceded the fact that the Offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of accident. Moreover petitioners have filed the certified copy of the charge sheet, FIR, site plan and the same have not been challenged. Petitioners in order to substantiate their contention has also examined eye witness in the present case. From the categorical deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 where they deposed about the manner of accident and non examination of the witness in rebuttal by respondent, petitioner is able to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. Moreover, the content of the undisputed FIR also manifest the factumof rash and negligent driving of R1 MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 9 of 23 by his truck where six persons sitting at tea stall were expired.
In view of the above, this issue stands proved in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 216. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the petitioners and by whom. But before deciding the above fact, first we have to calculate that how much amount has to be given.
17.PW 1, the wife of the deceased has categorically stated that at the time of accident, her husband was working as Homeopathic Doctor at Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. She deposed that her deceased husband has treated numerous patients of different types of diseases and he was well known to treat Paralytic patients. She deposed that he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, she has not placed on record any document in regard to the fact that her husband was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. However, she has placed on record the Ex. PW 1/7 i.e., educational qualification documents, i.e., the degree of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery qualified in the year 2009. Further he has been registered as Homeopathic doctor by the Registrar at Homeopathic Medicine Board, Lucknow, Uttar MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 10 of 23 Pradesh. PW 1 has also placed on record Ex. PW 1/8 i.e., register of patients maintained by deceased whereby a number of entries have been mentioned of the patients treated by the deceased. This document has not been disputed by respondent except the bald suggestion given by the insurance company which has also been denied by the petitioner. Moreover, the fact has also not been denied by the insurance company that the deceased was a doctor practicing as Homeopathic Doctor.
18.Further the insurance company has taken the plea that the the court is inclined to grant the compensation, then court may take the minimum wages prevailed at the time of accident in Bihar for the assessment of the future loss of income. However, the plea of the insurance company is not tenable particularly when deceased was a certified Homeopathic doctor having the degree in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery and this fact has not been denied by the insurance company. It cannot be said that person who is doctor by profession would have been earning @ minimum wages. Register maintained by the deceased in ordinary course of nature of business of the patients treated by him has not been proved, yet in all probability it is presumed that the person having ten years practice in Homeopath would have earned at least Rs. 1000/- per day. Therefore, it is assumed that the deceased would MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 11 of 23 have been earning Rs. 30,000/- per month being in this profession. Hence, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 30,000/- per month for the assessment of future loss of income.
19.So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that wife and other claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium." Filial consortium a child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium: a parents' society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium: A spouses' society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse. In the present case, five claimants i.e., wife, daughter, two sons and mother of the deceased are left behind as legal heirs. Therefore, all the five petitioners being the wife, son, mother of the deceased are entitled to consortium. Therefore, on the following heads, compensation is to be awarded:-
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.;
FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 12 of 23
S. Head Amount (in Rs.)
No.
1 Loss of 2,00,000/-
consortium
[40,000 x 5]
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
20. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a thumb rule in Sarla Verma vs. DTC [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments, unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it necessary to depart from the said rule. Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case.
21.Here, the deceased was married. As per the copy of the aadhar card, the date of birth of the deceased is 05.05.1985 and the accident took place on 02.11.2021, therefore, the age of the deceased is 36 Years 5 Months at the time of the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be '15'.
22.Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.;
FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 13 of 23 prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of future dependency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. The deceased was below 50 years of age therefore, an addition of 40% as future prospects has to be made. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 42,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- + 30,000/- x 40/ 100). Legal heirs i.e., petitioner no.1 to 5 can be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased being the wife, daughter, two sons and mother of the deceased. Therefore, one-fourth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deduction, the income of the deceased comes to 31,500/-. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 56,70,000- (Rs. 31,500/- x 12 x 15). I therefore, award Rs. 56,70,000/- to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.
23.In view of the decision on above mentioned issues, the total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under :-
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY =Rs. 56,70,000.00 FUNERAL EXPENSES =Rs. 15,000.00 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM =Rs. 2,00,000.00 LOSS OF ESTATE =Rs. 15,000.00 ============= TOTAL =Rs. 59,000,00.00 ============= MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 14 of 23 RELIEF
24.In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs. 59,000,00/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh only) to petitioner/ Legal Heirs Gunja Rai, Khushee Rai, Krishan Mohan Rai, Praveen Kumar Rai and Bindu Rai as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
RELEASE OF AWARD AMOUNT IN THE DEATH CASE OF CHANDRAMOHAN RAI (In the share of Petitioner no. 1 / Gunja Rai, the wife of the deceased)
25.A sum of Rs. 39,00,000/- alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being the wife of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.
35,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 03 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 04 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 05 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 06 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 07 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 08 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 09 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 11 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 12 years.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 15 of 23 • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 13 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 14 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 15 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 16 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 17 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 18 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 19 years. • Rs.1,75,000/- for a period of 20 years.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 2, 3, 4, Khushee Rai, Krishan Mohan Rai, Praveen Kumar Rai, being the daughter and sons of the deceased)
26.A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 i.e., Khushee Rai, Krishan Mohan Rai, Praveen Kumar Rai being the daughter, two sons of the deceased respectively. Entire amount is directed to be kept in the shape of FDR till they attain the age of majority respectively.
(In the share of Petitioner no. 5 / Bindu Rai, the mother of the deceased)
27.A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith the proportionate interest is awarded to the petitioner no.5 being the mother of the deceased.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,50,000/-for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,50,000/- for a period of 03 years.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 16 of 23 Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
28.It is ordered that no amount shall be released to the petitioner unless he produces his passbook in the Tribunal having the endorsement that "no cheque book and no ATM Card has been issued and will not be issued to the petitioner till the entire award amount is exhausted".
29.In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no. 2/ insurance company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
30.The respondent no.2/ Insurance company is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 17 of 23
31. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING A/c 35195787436 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioners.
32.MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP).
33.Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
34.The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35.Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
36.No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
37.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 18 of 23 the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant along- with the photocopy of the FDR's .
38.The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
39.No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
40.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
41.On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
42.Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
43.The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
44.The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 19 of 23
45.The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 2/ INSURANCE COMPANY
46.The Respondent no. 2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
47.The Respondent no. 2 is directed to furnish a copy of this award along-with the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 20 of 23 Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
48.The Respondent no. 2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
49.Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no. 2.
50.The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 12.12.2022.
FORM IV-A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD Date of accident : 02.11.2021 Name of the deceased : CHANDRAMOHAN RAI Age of the deceased : 36 Years 5 Months Occupation of the : Homeopathic Doctor Income of the deceased : Rs. 30,000/- per month MACT No. 42/22, Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 21 of 23 Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased :
S. No. Name Age (at the Relation
time of
accident)
1. Gunja Rai 37 Years Wife
2. Khushee Rai 11 Years Daughter
3. Krishan Mohan rai 08 Years Son
4. Praveen Kumar Rai 04 Years Son
5. Bindu Rai 66 Years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
3 Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 30,000/-
4 Add - Future Prospects (B) Rs. 12,000/-
5 Less - Personal expenses of the Rs. 10,500/-
deceased (C)
6 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 31,500/-
[(A+B)-C = D]
7 Annual loss of dependency Rs. 3,78,000/-
(Dx12)
8 Multiplier (E) '15'
9 Total loss of dependency Rs. 56,70,000/-
(Dx12xE=F)
10 Medical Expenses (G) --------
11 Compensation for Loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-
Consortium (H)
12 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
(I)
MACT No. 42/22,
Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 22 of 23 13 Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses (J) 14 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 59,00,000/-
(F+G+H+I+J= K) 15 RATE OF INTEREST 7% AWARDED 16 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 3,63,599/-
award (M) 17 Total amount including interest Rs. 62,63,599/-
(M+O) 18 Award amount released Rs. 9,63,599/- 19 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 53,00,000/-
20 Mode of disbursement of the Some amount is kept in the
award amount to the claimant shape of FDR and some
(s). amount is directed to be
released.
21 Date for compliance 12.12.2022
Pronounced in the open Court,
on 10th November, 2022
(ATUL KUMAR GARG)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 42/22,
Rita Kumar and ors. Vs Rohit Gautam and ors.; FIR No. 448/2021, PS Fatehpur Beri. 10.11.2022 Page No. 23 of 23