[ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of 23 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI New No. 4975416 UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010004312012 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Raghunath Dass ( father of deceased) 2. Smt. [ENTITY] w/o Sh. [ENTITY] (mother of deceased) All R/o C141, CBlock, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Petitioners/claimants Vs. 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Nihal Singh Wala, District Faridkot, Punjab. Also at C/o Gagan Road Lines Saharanpur road, District Yamuna Nagar, Hayrana135001 Driver /R1 2. Sh. [ENTITY] s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Mittal R/o H. no. 4, New Town Moga, District Moga, Punjab Also at M/s Moga Motor Store Gulabi Bagh, District Moga, Punjab. Owner/R2 3. The [ENTITY] 12/1 Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi110002 Insurance co/R3 Respondents Other details DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.09.2012 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 30.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10.2019 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of23 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of 23 FORM - V 1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS [ACT] TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN [PRECEDENT]. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018. 1. Date of the accident 20.07.2012 2. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is an outstation investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal accident of Saharanpur, UP. 3. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is an outstation investigating officer to the insurance company. accident of Saharanpur, UP. 4. Date of filing of Report under [SECTION] It is an outstation [ACT] before the Metropolitan Magistrate accident of Saharanpur, UP. 5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information It is an outstation Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before accident of Claims Tribunal Saharanpur, UP. 6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance It is an outstation Company accident of Saharanpur, UP. 7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). It is an outstation accident of Saharanpur, UP. 8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? It is an outstation accident of Saharanpur, UP. 9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed It is an outstation later on? accident of Saharanpur, UP. 10. Whether the police has verified the documents It is an outstation filed with DAR? accident of Saharanpur, UP. 11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is an outstation the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, accident of whether any action/direction warranted? Saharanpur, UP. [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of23 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of 23 12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer It is an outstation by the insurance Company. accident of Saharanpur, UP. 13. Name, address and contact number of the It is an outstation Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. accident of Saharanpur, UP. 14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance It is an outstation Company submitted his report within 30 days of accident of the DAR? (Clause 22) Saharanpur, UP. 15. Whether the insurance company admitted the It is an outstation liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of accident of the insurance company fairly computed the Saharanpur, UP. compensation in accordance with law. 16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is an outstation the part of the Designated Officer of the accident of Insurance Company? If so, whether any Saharanpur, UP. action/direction warranted? 17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer It is an outstation of the Insurance Company . accident of Saharanpur, UP. 18. Date of the Award 03.10.2019 19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties? 20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? 21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 01.04.2019 directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 29.04.2019 passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? 23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above Claimant(s) 24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no.1 Smt. [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of23 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 4 of 23 claimant(s) and the address of the bank with [ENTITY] savings bank IFSC Code a/c No. 33288100014298 with Bank of Baroda, Azadpur branch, Dehi and petitioner no. 2 Sh. [ENTITY] a/c no. 50485107245 with Allahabad Bank, Azadpur branch, Delhi. IFSC : [ENTITY] 25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes is near his place of residence? 26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition. 27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123, Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002[SECTION], Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI, be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT]. JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. in respect of accidental death of Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The facts mentioned in the petition are that on 20.07.2012 at about 02:00 am, Sh. [ENTITY] (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was driving a motorcycle bearing no. UP11AC4755 while going [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 4 of23 towards Nehru market from ghanta ghar along with his friend [ENTITY] at a slow speed with observing traffic rules. When they reached at ghanta ghar chowk opposite "nagar chowki" Saharanpur, UP, then suddenly a truck bearing registration no. HR58A0069 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by R1 at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner came from Qutubshere Ambala road side and hit the motorcycle of deceased with a great force. Due to said impact, the deceased alongwith his friend and motorcycle fell down on road and they sustained fatal/head injuries. It has been mentioned in the petition that the deceased was removed to Civil hospital, Saharanpur, UP where he died on the way to hospital. It has also been mentioned in the petition that FIR No. 271/12 U/[SECTION] [ACT] PS Kotwali Nagar, Sharanpur, UP was registered.
Postmortem was also conducted on the dead body of deceased vide [CASE NUMBER] wherein the cause of death was mentioned as a result of antemortem head injury. It was mentioned in the petition that the said accident was caused due to sole rash and negligent driving of R1 who drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
3. R1/[ENTITY] has not filed any written statement and was ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.12.2017.
4. R2/Sh. [ENTITY]/owner of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement wherein he has stated that his vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further stated that accident, if any, was caused due to sole negligence of the deceased as he was riding the motorcycle at a high speed in the middle of the road and in a zig zag manner. He specifically denied that the offending vehicle/truck was involved in the accident. He has stated that the offending vehicle was insured with R3/insurance co.
The record would show that R2 was ultimatley proceeded against [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 5 of23 exparte vide order dated 04.12.2017.
5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd/R3 has filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide police no. 36110031120100001469 w.e.f 30.06.2012 to 29.06.2013 i.e. covering the date of accident 20.07.2012. It was stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the deceased himself as he was not driving his vehicle with care.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 12.05.2014: (1) Whether on 20.07.2012 at about 2:00 am, at Ghanta Ghar chowk opposite Nagar chowki Saharanpur, UP, a truck bearing registration No. HR58A0069 which was being driven rashly and negligently by [ENTITY] hit motorcycle no. UP11AC4755 which was being driven by [ENTITY] and caused his death? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPR (3). Relief.
7. Petitioners have examined Sh. [ENTITY] (father of deceased) as PW1.
R3/Insurance co. has examined Sh. [ENTITY], Sr. Clerk, ARTO office, Hamirpur, UP as R3W1.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners and ld counsel for R3. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
[ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 6 of23
9. Issue wise findings are as under: The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioners.
Petitioners have examined Sh. [ENTITY] (father of deceased) as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the documents i.e. death certificate of deceased, matriculation certificate of deceased and his own election ID card as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 respectively.
PW1 inter alia deposed that deceased [ENTITY] was his son who met with an accident on 20.07.2012 and died on the way to hospital on the same day. He deposed that FIR was registered u/[SECTION] u/s [SECTION]
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of ld counsel for insurance co/R3 which is not germane to the issue in hand.
The copy of criminal case record would show that the case FIR No. 271/12 u/[SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] PS Kotwali Nagar was registered and that the charge sheet u/[SECTION] [ACT] was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
During final arguments of the case, the ld counsel for claimants and also for the insurance referred to judgment dated 11.11.2013 of Ld. MACT, Saharanpur in the corresponding death case of Sh. [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY]. Both the claimants and insurance co/R3 have referred to and relied upon the certified copy of said judgment dated 11.11.2013 of Ld. MACT, Saharanpur. Ld. MACT, Saharanpur has relied upon the testimony of one Sh. [ENTITY] who was an eye witness of the accident and his testimony has also been referred in the said judgment dated 11.11.2013. The [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 7 of23 same can be relied upon in the present matter connected matter being arising out of the same accident.
In a recent judgment in the case of [ENTITY] vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 166/2019, date of decision 14.02.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia held as follows: "It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
It was further held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case of [ENTITY] (Supra) as under: " Similarly the issue of nonexamination of the pillion rider, [ENTITY], would not be fatal to the case of the appellants. The approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non examination of some "best" eye witness in the case but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This court, in [ENTITY] (supra), faced a similar situation where [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 8 of23 the evidence of claimant's eye witness was discarded by the Tribunal and the respondent was acquitted in criminal case concerning the accident. This court, however, took the view that the material on record was prima facie sufficient to establish that the respondent was negligent. In the present case, therefore, the Tribunal was right in accepting the claim of the appellants even without the deposition of the pillion rider, [ENTITY], since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the identity of the parties involved in the accident."
The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimants beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above said discussion, it has been proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
In the said circumstances and other record including the FIR and Charge sheet against R1, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle of deceased thereby causing his death.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
10. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW1 ( father of the deceased) has deposed through his evidence by [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 9 of23
way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the documents i.e. death certificate of deceased, matriculate certificate of deceased and his election ID card as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 respectively.
He deposed that his deceased son was a private car driver by profession and was earning Rs. 12,000/ per month.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he deposed that he did not have any document to show the employment and income of deceased.
It is evident that the claimants have not proved on record any document and have also not led any proper evidence to prove that the deceased was working as a driver or that he was having an income of Rs. 12,000/ per month.
In facts, petitioners have not proved the work status or the nature of work of the deceased and his monthly income.
Petitioners have proved on record the matriculation certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 which mentions the date of birth of deceased as 12.11.1990, therefore, he was aged about 21 years & 8 months on the date of accident i.e. 20.07.12. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of driving licence of deceased which mentions the address of deceased as C141, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. The copy of election ID card of deceased on record also mentions his address as C141, CBlock, DDA Flat, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. The copy of aadhar cards and election ID cards (Ex. PW1/3 colly) of parents of deceased also mention the same address of Delhi which would prove that deceased was a resident of Delhi.
In view of the said discussion, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of a matriculate worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the [ACT]. The minimum wages of a matriculate worker at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs. 8528/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 10 of23 to consider the income of deceased as Rs. 8528/ per month on the date of accident in question.
(b) Addition of future prospects If addition in income towards future prospects is to be made In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. [ENTITY] & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017.
In the said judgment of [ENTITY] (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 11 of23 computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of [ENTITY] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in [ENTITY] read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
( Emphasis Supplied) In the case in hand, the deceased was a self employed person and in terms of above said judgment, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under [SECTION] of [ACT].
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 21 years and 8 months. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in [ENTITY] (Supra), the deceased would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age group of 40 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 8528/+40% of 8528/ which comes to Rs. 8528/+ Rs.3411/(after rounding off). = Rs.11,939/.
[ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 12 of23 (c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Claimants are the parents of deceased. The father of deceased cannot be considered as dependent upon the deceased. In facts, there was only one dependent upon the deceased i.e. his mother. Hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 50% in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of [ENTITY] vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298: (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] (Supra) in paragraph no 61 (v) of the judgment.
(d) Selection of multiplier:
As discussed above, the age of the deceased was about 21 years & 8 month at the time of his death. In view of paragraph no. 61(vii) of the judgment in the case of [ENTITY] (Supra), the age of deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "18"
as per judgment in case of [ENTITY] (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of [ENTITY] (Supra).
(e) Loss of financial dependency In the light of aforesaid facts, loss of financial dependency of the petitioner comes to Rs. 12,89,412/ [i.e. Rs. 11,939/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X18 (multiplier) X1/2 (dependency)].
11. Compensation under nonpecuniary heads/conventional heads:
In view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [ENTITY] (Supra), as held in paragraph number 61 (viii) of the said judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/ towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/ towards funeral expenses.
12. [ENTITY]/Consortium.
The deceased was an unmarried person and the [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 13 of23
petitioners/claimants are his parents. It is now a settled law in terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of [PRECEDENT], date of decision 18.09.2018: 2018(8) SCJ 338:2018 SCC Online SC 1546 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of [PRECEDENT] date of decision 03.04.2019 that the compensation under the head of filial consortium/consortium is therefore, required to be awarded to all the claimants to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ each. In the present case there are two claimants who are parents of the deceased, hence, Rs. 80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ x 2) is being granted under the said head.
13. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of [PRECEDENT], date of decision 02.11.2017 after referring to the judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors.", passed in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 31.10.17 delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, accepted the submissions of the ld counsel for the insurer that nonpecuniary heads of damages would have to be restricted to the total of Rs. 70,000/ only, in view of the dispensation in [ENTITY] (Supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case further held that the Constitution Bench decision did not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages (except loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). In view of above said discussion, the petitioners would not be entitled to any amount under the said head of loss of love and affection.
14. Petitioner/claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 12,89,412/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 14 of23 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Loss of Consortium/[ENTITY] Rs. 80,000/ Total Rs. 13,99,412/ [Rounded off to Rs. 14,00,000/] (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 12.09.2012 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case [PRECEDENT] .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
15. Liability Insurance co/R3 has examined Sh. [ENTITY], Sr. Clerk, ARTO office, Hamirpur, UP as R3W1. He brought the cash book register for the year 1994 and deposed that as per the computer record maintained by his office, DL bearing no. 10569 was not issued by the said office in favour of [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY] in 1994. He deposed that as per record, no amount seeking the issuance of licence was deposited by Sh. [ENTITY] on 24.10.1994 or 25.10.1994. He deposed that before issuance of licence requisite fee has to be deposited by applicant and no fees stood deposited as per the record. He deposed that the record of his office was burnt in fire on 11.08.1996 in respect of which a FIR was also recorded. The copy of written confirmation by ARTO in that regard has been proved as Ex. R3W1/1 and the copy of extract of register has been proved as Ex. R3W1/2.
R3W1 was cross examined by ld counsel for petitioners wherein he deposed that he was deposing only from the record and that in Ex. R3W1/2 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 15 of23 the name of the father of the applicant was not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that he had brought false and fabricated record.
As discussed above, R1 did not file any written statement nor proved his any driving licence in the court and was ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.12.2017. R3W1 has also proved that no requisite fees which was required to be deposited for issuance of driving licence was deposited by R1. R2 did not cross examine R3W1 and the cross examination of R3W1 by R1 and R2 was nil, opportunity given. R1 and R2 also did not lead any evidence in that regard. In the said circumstances, testimony of R3W1 and record, it has been proved that R1 was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.
In the present case, though, it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident at the relevant time, yet the insurance company/R3 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant and it can very well recover the said amount from R2/ [ENTITY] i.e. owner of the offending vehicle as per rules .
R3/Insurance co. would thus be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner but are granted recovery rights against R2.
16. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in case of [PRECEDENT]., New India Assurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 14,00,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the [ENTITY] as [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 16 of23 per rules. R3/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
17. Joint statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 [ACT] was recorded on 29.04.2019 regarding their savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT], for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioners and clause 32 of [ACT] regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ be given to Sh. [ENTITY] who is father of deceased and from the same an amount of Rs. 50,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.50485107245 with Allahabad bank, Azadpur branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 [ACT]) and remaining amount be kept in [ACT] so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 17 of23 period of one month to 36 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Further, remaining amount be given to Smt. [ENTITY] and from the same an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her MACT Claims SB A/c no.33288100014298 with Bank of Baroda, Jahangirpuri branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 [ACT]) and remaining amount be kept in [ACT] so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 60 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 60 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant (s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of [PRECEDENT]. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 18 of23 date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
18. Relief As discussed above, R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 14,00,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 12.09.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 19 of23 Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
[ENTITY] is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in the case of [PRECEDENT], the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. [ENTITY], Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (02222741336/94[SECTION]48606) {other details Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([emailprotected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 20 of23 in [PRECEDENT]. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT], joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 29.04.2019 wherein they have stated that claimants were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
19. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. R3 is directed to obtain the copy of PAN Card of petitioner from the court record. Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date:
2019.10.03 16:57:17 +0530 Announced in open court ([ENTITY]) on 03rd October 2019 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
[ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 21 of23 FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 20.07.2012
2. Name of deceased: [ENTITY]
3. Age of the deceased: About 21 years & 8 months at the time of accident
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the deceased: 11,939/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation (i) Smt. [ENTITY] 54 years Mother (ii) Sh. [ENTITY] 60 years Mother (iii) (iv) (iv) Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 8528/ . 8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40%= Rs. 3411/ 9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/2nd deceased (C ) 10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.5969/ { (A+B) - C =D} 11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 71,628/
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 12,89,304/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 22 of23
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 80,000/ consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 14,00,000/ (after (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) rounding of)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 8,82,000/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 22,82,000/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 1,50,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 21,32,000/
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of [ACT].
26. Next date for compliance of the 18.11.2019.
award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date:
[ENTITY] 2019.10.03 16:57:28 +0530 ([ENTITY]) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 03.10.2019 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 23 of23