Delhi District Court
Smt. Pooja Rani vs Sh. Ashok Kumar on 4 June, 2019
MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5550/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 169/14)
1. Smt. Pooja Rani,
W/o Late Rohit Tyagi,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Smt. Baleshvari Devi,
W/o Sh. Mahavir,
(Mother of deceased)
3. Sh. Mahavir,
S/o Late Sh. Bhura Singh,
(Father of deceased)
4. Master Sohit,
S/o Late Sh. Rohit Tyagi
(Son of deceased)
All R/o Village Shahpur Nij Morta,
District Ghaziabad, UP
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Mangal Sain,
R/o Village Malakpur,
Post Anupshahar,
District Buland Shahar
UP (Driver)
2. Sh. Suresh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Krishan Veer Sharma,
R/o 16, Mohamad Pur,
Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 23
MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
Ramzan Pur,
Narela,
Delhi (Owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
IFFCO Sadan C1 District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi (Insurer)
...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 22.04.2014 Date of Arguments : 20.05.2019 Date of Decision : 04.06.2019
APPEARANCES: Sh. Harish Kumar, adv for petitioners.
None for respondents no. 1 & 2.
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Adv for respondent no. 3.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioners have filed the claim petition U/s 166/140 M.V Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization for the fatal injuries sustained by Sh. Rohit Tyagi in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 09.01.2014 at 11.15 hrs at Opposite Factory Shreeram Piston & Rings Ltd, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, involving a vehicle Canter bearing registration no. DL1M3432(alleged offending vehicle) being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1.
Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 23MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
2. It is averred that Sh. Rohit Tyagi was aged about 23 years old; he was doing the private job and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month at the time of accident. On 09.01.2014 at 11.15 hrs, Rohit Tyagi was riding on the bike with his friend namely Rajnish and crossed the road at opposite Factory Shreeram Piston & Rings Ltd, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad then all of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1M3432 which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from Meerut side and hit against the aforesaid bike. As a result thereof, both the riders of bike fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. FIR no. 30/2014 U/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad with regard to said accident. It is further averred that the offending vehicle i.e. Canter bearing no. DL1M3432 was owned by respondent no. 2 and same was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited/Respondent no. 3 for the period in question. Thus, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
3. In their joint WS, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have claimed that the accident has not been caused with the vehicle which was being driven by the respondent no. 1. They further claimed that on the alleged date and time, the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle from Kurja to Delhi. That the route of Khurja to Delhi and the Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 place where the accident took place, are completely different. Alternatively, they have claimed that the aforesaid Canter was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. They have simply denied the averments made in the claim petition and have prayed for its dismissal.
4. In its WS, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V Act. It has nowhere denied that the aforesaid Canter bearing registration no. DL1M3432 was not insured with it in the name of respondent no. 2 during the period in question. It has prayed for dismissal of claim petition.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor vide order dt. 13.11.2014:
1) Whether the deceased Rohit Tyagi suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 09.01.2014 at about 11.15 am at Opposite Factory Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd., Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, UP within the jurisdiction of PS. Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, UP due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1 who was driving the Canter bearing registration no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined three witnesses i.e. Sh. Mahavir Singh (father of deceased) as PW1, PW2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi (alleged eyewitness) and PW3 Sh. Vijay Tiwari. They closed their evidence on 19.02.2018 through their counsel. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by either of the respondents.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form VI A, vide order dated 02.04.19. Petitioners have submitted their submissions in Form VI A but the respondents have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that he was working with M/s. Shreeram Piston & Rings Ltd., Meerut Road, Ghaziabad. He further deposed that on 09.01.2014 at about 11:15 hrs, he was going to his factory and when he reached near his factory, he saw deceased Rohit and his friend were going to his home after duty. He further deposed that one Canter bearing no. DL1M3432 which Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 came from back side at very high speed and hit against the motorcycle of deceased and both the riders sustained grievous injuries. He also deposed that the accident was caused due to sole negligent driving of driver of Canter bearing no. DL1M3432. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3, he deposed that deceased Rohit was working with him in the same company and he was also from his village. He further deposed that he had no document to show that he was on duty on 09.01.17. He further deposed that police never recorded his statement. Deceased Rohit was died at the spot and he informed the parents of deceased. He deposed that he did not accompany deceased Rohit to the hospital. He admitted that another person namely Rajnish was also died in the same accident. He admitted that he was in the factory when the accident took place. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident as he was in the company. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness at all.
9. Counsel for petitioners heavily relied upon the criminal case record (Ex. PW1/2 colly) in order to bring home his point that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration no. DL1M3432. He further argued that FIR No. 30/2014 was registered at PS. Sihani Gate against respondent no. 1 for causing the accident in question and respondent no. 1 was also chargesheeted by police for offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC, which clearly Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
10. On the other hand, counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that PW2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi is not an eye witness of the accident in question and no eye witness has been examined by petitioners during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, contended that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
11. Instead of referring to the series of decisions on the point in issue, it may be noted that it is well settled legal position as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts in plethora of judgments delivered from time to time that in claim petitions preferred U/s 160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicles by its drivers. At the same time, it is no more resintegra that claim petition filed under relevant provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of social welfare legislation and the proceedings are summary in nature and do not require strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It needs no emphasis that in case replies filed by respondents, are evasive then it is deemed that they have admitted the averments made by the claimants. The purpose of granting Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and the niceties, hyper technicalities, procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play and same should not be any ground to dismiss the claim petitions and to defeat the rights of the claimants. While saying so, I am fortified by the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as " N.KV. Bros (P) Ltd Vs. M. Karumai Ammal", 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); " Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy", 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and " Dulcina Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz", 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC). It is also relevant to mention here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach.
12. The aforesaid issue recently came up for discussion before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018, decided on 16.11.18. After referring to the previous judicial precedents on the point in issue and the fact that M.V. Act is a social welfare legislation, Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 29 of its judgment as under: "xxxxx
29. In our view, what more documents could be filed then the documents filed by the appellants to prove the factum of the accident and the Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 persons involved therein.
xxxxx"
13. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar and the claimants had not examined any eyewitness. Still, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view of filing of criminal case record including chargesheet showing that driver of alleged offending vehicle had been chargesheeted for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the driver himself did not enter into witness box, claimants were able to prove the issue of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by said driver on the basis of preponderance of the probabilities.
14. In the present case, the petitioners have examined PW2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi who claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the accident in question. However, the insurance company has raised a contention that PW2 Sh. Vikas Tyagi is not the eyewitness. PW2 Vikas Tyagi in his cross examination has admitted that his statement was never recorded by the police in the present case. It is also admitted by him that he did not accompany deceased Rohit Tyagi to the hospital. PW2 Vikas Tyagi could not furnish any explanation for not accompanying the deceased to the hospital who was known to him and belonging to same village. The name of PW2 Vikas Tyagi is nowhere cited by the IO in the list of witnesses. Therefore, considering all these submissions, I am not inclined to accept the deposition of PW2 Vikas Tyagi. There appears shadow of doubt that Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 PW2 Vikas Tyagi is the eyewitness of the accident. Nevertheless, there is ample material brought on record by the petitioners during the course of inquiry, which is sufficient to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration no. DL1M3432 by its driver.
15. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid Canter, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing no. DL1M3432 by him.
16. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 30/2014 u/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS. Sihani Gate with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/2 colly), would show that same was registered on 10.01.2014 on the basis of statement of Sh. Subhash Chand Sharma. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein the sequence of facts leading to the accident. Moreover, the respondents have not led any evidence to rebut on the aspect of accident in question being caused due to rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing no. DL1M3432.Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 23
MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
17. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 30/2014(supra) was registered at PS. Sihani Gate with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/2 colly) would show that same was registered on 10.01.2014 (date of accident being 09.01.2014 at 11:15 hrs). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Canter bearing registration no. DL1M3432 at the instance of petitioners herein.
18. Apart from above, copy of PM Report (which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/2 colly) of deceased, would show that his cause of death was on account of shock and hemorrhage. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The injuries as noted in the relevant column with regard to external injuries, as mentioned therein, are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Rohit Tyagi had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 09.01.2014 at 11.15 hrs at Opposite Factory Shreeram Piston & Rings Ltd, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, due to rash and negligent driving of Canter bearing registration Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 no. DL1M3432 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.ISSUE NO. 2
20. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
21. As already stated above, the claimants are the widow, parents and son of deceased. PW1 Sh. Mahavir Singh (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged about 23 years; he was working with M/s. Shreeram Piston & Rings Ltd and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/ at the time of accident. He further deposed that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the income of deceased. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW1/1
2. Certified copy of criminal case Ex. PW1/2(colly) record Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
22. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3, PW1 admitted that he was not with the deceased at the time of accident. He further deposed that he is a farmer and have farming land of 1 bigha. He denied the suggestion that he was not dependent on the salary of deceased. He further deposed that his grandson was born in the month of April 2014. He denied the suggestion that his son was not working anywhere at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that his daughter in law did not reside with him. He also denied the suggestion that his daughter in law had married again. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness at all.
23. PW3 Sh. Vijay Tiwari is the Official from the office of employer of deceased Rohit Tyagi. He produced the computerized attested copies of payslips of deceased Rohit Tyagi for the month of September 2013 to January 2014 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/1(colly). He also produced the computerized copies of attendance register for the period October 2013 to January 2014 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/2(colly). During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3, he admitted that the salary of employees were prepared by the Accounts Branch not by him. They maintain the personal file of the employees of the company. He deposed that basic pay of Rohit Tyagi was Rs. 126.35 paise per day and his variable Dearness Allowance was Rs. 148.46 paise per day at the time of accident. He further deposed that the actual payment of salary was Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 based upon the number of days for which duty was actually performed by Rohit Tyagi. He further deposed that the deceased was covered under ESI Scheme and monthly contribution was deducted from his salary and equivalent amount was also being deposited by the employer with ESI. He deposed that the amount of compensation as well as monthly pension is received by family members of employee covered under ESI Scheme, only when such employee sustains accidental injury/death during the course of his employment but not otherwise. He also deposed that as per his knowledge, the family members of deceased Rohit Tyagi are getting monthly pension of about Rs. 1,600/ or so. He further deposed that he had not brought the relevant record containing entry regarding the amount of compensation and the exact amount of monthly pension fixed by ESI after death of their employee Rohit Tyagi. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not cross examine this witness at all.
24. After referring to the testimony of PW3 and the document produced by him, counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that last drawn monthly salary of deceased should be taken as Rs. 7,800/ in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He further argued that since deceased was having fixed salary and he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 23
MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
25. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of material available on record, I find substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioners that monthly salary of deceased should be considered as Rs. 7,800/ in order to calculate the loss of dependency. This fact stands duly established from the testimony of PW3 and the documents produced by him on record. The payslip (which is part of Ex. PW3/1 colly) for the month of September 2013, shows that deceased Rohit Tyagi had received Rs. 7,800/ in the said month as salary. The respondents, more particularly the insurance company, could not impeach the testimony of PW3 and could not create any doubt on the authenticity or genuineness of the aforesaid documents brought on record by said witness. It has also not led any evidence in rebuttal during the course of inquiry. Hence, I am inclined to accept the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 7,800/ in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
26. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Rohit Tyagi was aged about 23 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have not filed any document on record to show the exact age of deceased. In the postmortem report, age of deceased is mentioned as 23 years. The respondents have not led any evidence to dispute the said age of deceased or to show that the age of deceased was less than 23 years or more than that at the time of accident. Hence, the age of deceased is accepted as 23 years at that time. Thus, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
27. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
28. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased. Considering all these facts and circumstances, it is accepted that there were four dependents on the income of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 17,69,040/ (Rs. 7,800/ X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 17,69,040/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 23
MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
29. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages.
Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
30. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,69,040/
2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 17,99,040/ Rounded Off to Rs. 17,99,000/ Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
31. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
32. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 17,99,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e. 22.04.14 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
33. Statements of legal heirs of deceased except Smt. Pooja Rani in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded on 05.11.18. During the Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 course of final arguments, counsel for insurance company argued that Smt. Pooja Rani (Petitioner no. 1) has remarried after the death of deceased Rohit Tyagi. This fact stands corroborated from the adoption paper of Master Soham filed on record that Smt. Pooja Rani had remarried to Sh. Ram Bahadur after the death of the deceased. In view of the fact that Smt. Pooja Rani has remarried after the death of her husband, therefore, she shall not be entitled to any compensation amount in the present case. After considering the entire fact and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner no. 2 namely Smt. Baleshvari shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,59,800/(Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 3 namely Sh. Mahveer Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,59,800/(Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 4 namely Master Sohit shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,79,400/ (Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
34. Out of the share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 4788000100041120 with Punjab National Bank, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, having IFSC Code PUNB0478800 and remaining amount Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
35. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 3742108000013 with Canara Bank, Shahpur Nij Morta, District Ghaziabad, UP, having IFSC Code CNRB0003742 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
36. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 4 Master Sohit shall be kept in the form of FDR till he attains the age of 21 years. However, monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by him through his grandfather to be used for his welfare and upbringment.
37. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 23MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019
(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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, 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 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 alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
38. During the course of hearing of final arguments, claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income does not exceed from the taxable limit prescribed under the law. They have also furnished their forms No. 15G/15H on record.
39. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be 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 award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 23 MACP No. 5550/16 (Old No.169/14) FIR No. 30/14. DOD: 04.06.2019 the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company alongwith original Form No. 15G/15H of claimant (after retaining photocopies thereof on record) for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V & Form IVA in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 04.06.2019 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 23 pages and each page is signed by me. Digitally signed by DEVENDER DEVENDER KUMAR KUMAR JANGALA JANGALA Date: 2019.06.07 16:17:32 +0530 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Smt. Pooja Rani & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 23