IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: (WEST-01):DELHI [CASE NUMBER] 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o late sh. [ENTITY] Aged about 52 years 2. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] Aged about 12 years Both Residence of H. No. D-43, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri Central Delhi, Delhi-110012. Petitioners Versus 1. Sh. [ENTITY] (Driver) S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o House No. 265, VPO, Jahangirpur Tehsil & District-Jhajjar, Haryana-124103 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] (Owner) R/o House No. 49-50, Rajiv Vihar, Najafgarh New Delhi-110043 3. The Reliance General Insurance (Insurer) Unit No. 306, 3rd Floor Palm Court Building Near MDI Chowk, Sector-14, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana Respondents
Date of Institution: : 06.06.2018 Date of reserving order/judgment : 20.08.2019 Date of pronouncement: : 02.09.2019 AWARD FORM-V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 23.02.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not mentioned Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the 13.03.2018 Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4. Date of filing of Report under [SECTION] Date not mentioned [ACT] before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 06.06.2018 Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 06.06.2018 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 06.06.2018
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or The accident in question deficiency on the part of the Investigating took place on 23.02.2018 Officer ? If so, whether any action/ and the DAR was filed on direction warranted? 06.06.2018
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 11.06.2018 Officer by the Insurance Company
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. [ENTITY], Manager the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Written statement has been Insurance Company submitted his report filed by the insurance within 30 days of the DAR? company on 19.09.2018
15. Whether the Insurance Company Yes admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Date not mentioned the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 02.09.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the Yes consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant (s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account (s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant (s) were 06.06.2018 directed to open savings bank account
(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 02.09.2019 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Both R/o D-43, Budh Claimant(s). Nagar, Inderpuri, Central Delhi, Delhi-110012
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the The petitioner no.1 Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank [ENTITY] is having A/c with [ACT]. No. 64210341582 of State Bank of India, Pusa Road, New Delhi [ACT] SBMY0040216 The petitioner no.2 [ENTITY] is having A/c No. 076601000066871 of Indian Overseas Bank, [ENTITY] J. J.
Colony, New Delhi
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account (s) in near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant (s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC ADJ/MACT/Parking Account Code, name and branch of the bank of of SBI Tis Hazari Courts, the Claims Tribunal in which the award Delhi as informed by the amount is to be deposited/transfered. Chief Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi MICR:- 110002126, [ACT]
1. This judgment -cum- award shall decide the petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by the petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of the deceased Sh. [ENTITY] in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2018 at about 10:00 PM, the deceased was going on foot and when he reached Near DDU Hospital, in front of MTNL Office, a car bearing No. DL-1RTA-9278 came from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar side to Beriwala Bagh side at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased with a great force. It has been further stated that due to the forceful impact, the deceased sustained grievance injuries in the accident in question. It has been further stated that immediately after the accident, the deceased was removed to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi by one Sh. [ENTITY] with the help of public. It has been further stated that during the treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by him.
3. As a result of the abovesaid accident, as per the case of the petitioner, FIR No.109/2018 dated 24.02.2018; P. S. Hari Nagar, u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered against the respondent No.1.
4. It has been stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years of age. It has been further stated that the deceased was doing a private job and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
5. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
6. It has been further stated that the deceased left behind his father and his minor sister who are the petitioners no.1 & 2 in the present claim petition.
7. In total, the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) on account of compensation.
8. Reply to the DAR has been filed by the respondent no.1 stating therein that the accident in question never took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license and badge at the time of accident. It has been further stated that on 23.02.2018 at about 11:00 PM, the said accident had already taken place with some other vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the spot. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 parked his vehicle near the place of occurrence to see the matter but in the meantime, some people took the photographs of the vehicle of the respondent no.1. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the alleged accident. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
9. Written statement has also been filed by the respondent no.2 stating therein that the respondent no.2 has been falsely implicated in the present matter by the police officials of PS Hari Nagar in collusion with the petitioners. It has been further stated that there is no damage or paint marks on the vehicle of respondent no.2 which shows that the accident in question did not take place with the vehicle of respondent no.2. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.
10. Written statement has also been filed by the insurance company wherein it has been admitted that the alleged offending vehicle i.e. Car (Taxi) bearing No. DL-1R-TA-9278 was insured with the answering respondent at the time of accident vide policy No. 130421723380003937 for the period from 30.05.2017 to 29.05.2018 in the name of Mr. [ENTITY]. The insurance company has filed on record the legal offer of Rs.2 lacs. The insurance company has taken the stand that father of the deceased cannot be considered as the dependent upon the deceased and the sister of the deceased was dependent upon the father.
11. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 12.12.2018:-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. [ENTITY] suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 23.02.2018 at about 10 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL-1RTA9278 by the respondent No.1 Sh.
[ENTITY], being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent No.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
12. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined the petitioner No.1 Sh. [ENTITY] (father of the deceased) as PW-1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the petitioners in the claim petition. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, photocopy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1(OSR); photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.2 as Ex. PW1/2(OSR) and DAR as Ex. PW1/3(colly).
13. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, PW-1 has admitted it to be correct that he is not an eye witness to the accident in question. PW-1 has further stated that his son was not alcoholic.
14. In the cross examination done by ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, PW-1 has stated that he is working as Car Washer at a Petrol Pump and he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW-1 has further stated that he has not filed any document to show that his son was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. PW-1 has further stated that his son was working with him as helper. PW-1 has further stated that his wife had died 4 years ago. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that they were not the dependents upon the deceased.
15. The petitioners have further examined Sh. [ENTITY], the eye witness to the accident in question as PW-2 and this witness has stated that the accident in question took place on 23.02.2018. PW-2 has further stated that he was coming from Macro Forging Office, Maya Puri and when he reached at the spot, he had seen the accident. PW-2 has further stated that the deceased was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle. PW-2 has further stated that he stopped a three wheeler and took the deceased/victim to DDU Hospital. PW-2 has further stated that the deceased was admitted in DDU hospital. PW-2 has further stated that he had taken himself the deceased to the hospital. PW-2 has further stated that he had himself got admitted the deceased in the hospital. PW-2 has further stated that however, the bouncers of the hospital threatened to implicate him in the abovesaid accident and thereafter, at the intervention of his brother, however, he was allowed to go. PW-2 has further stated that on the next day, IO SI [ENTITY] of the case called him in the police post for recording his statement. PW-2 has further stated that then on the next day, the IO recorded his statement and he also accompanied the IO to the spot of the accident.
16. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-2 has stated that he was on a scooty at the time of the accident and his cousin brother [ENTITY] was accompanying him. PW-2 has further stated that the offending vehicle was a Dzire car having registration No. DL-1R TN 9278, Silver Colour. PW-2 has further stated that the offending car came from Hari Nagar Ghanta Ghar side. PW-2 has further stated that the deceased was crossing the road when the offending vehicle struck him. PW-2 has further stated that it was a double road having divider.
17. PW-2 identified the spot of the accident in the site plan at point X1. PW-2 has further stated that the police did not prepare the site plan in his presence. PW-2 has further stated that there was no zebra crossing at the spot of the accident. PW-2 has further stated that there was no traffic signal at the spot of the accident. PW-2 has further stated that the deceased was crossing the road and was going towards MTNL office at the time of the accident. PW-2 has further stated that there was no other vehicle nearby the spot of the accident at the time of the accident. PW-2 has further stated that he was having a mobile phone in working condition at the time of the accident. PW-2 has further stated that he did not lodge any police report regarding the present accident. PW-2 has further stated that he remained at the hospital for about 15-30 minutes. PW-2 has further stated that the police personnel were already present in the hospital. PW-2 has further stated that the police personnel present in the hospital were trying to lodge a case against him but after clarification by his cousin, they did not lodge any case against him. PW-2 has further stated that the police first time recorded his statement after 2 days of the accident.
18. No evidence has been led by the respondents.
19. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties. I have meticulously perused the written final arguments filed by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company. The petitioners have also been examined under the [ACT] and I have considered the statement of the petitioners under [ACT] as well.
My Issue-wise findings are as under :-
Issue No. (I)
20. Since the present petition is under [SECTION] of [ACT], it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
21. The petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW-1 and he has well explained the mode and manner of accident. He has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in the petition. During his entire cross examination, nothing has come out so as to discredit his testimony.
22. The petitioners have also examined the eye witness to the abovesaid accident namely Sh. [ENTITY] as PW-2. PW-2 has been cross-examined by the respondents in detail but to my mind, even in the cross examination, so far as the material particulars of the accident in question are concerned, PW-2 has stuck to the point that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1.
23. In the PM report, the cause of death of the deceased has been stated as "cerebral injury (head injury) due to blunt force impact upon the head and haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries to the vital organs (Lung, Liver, Spleen) of body, which is possible in road traffic accident. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature, same duration and possible in road traffic accident".
24. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, they have utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence of the respondent no.1. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any evidence led by respondents no.1 & 2, it cannot be held that the accident in question was caused by some other vehicle and not by the offending vehicle belonging to respondent no.2.
25. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has claimed that in the case in hand, the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No.109/2018 dated 24.02.2018; P. S. Hari Nagar, u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered against the respondent No.1.
26. In [PRECEDENT], in [PRECEDENT], in [PRECEDENT], it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
27. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, to my mind, the petitioners have been able to prove issue No.1 in their favour and accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Issue No. (ii) COMPENSATION
28. In the written final arguments, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company is three fold. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that the petitioners being a father and the sister of the deceased cannot be considered as the dependents upon the deceased. It has been further argued that the father of the deceased has admitted that he was earning Rs. 15,000./- per month. It has been further argued that the income of the deceased has to be considered as per the [ACT]. Lastly, ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that no weightage can be given on account of future prospects in the light of the judgment announced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as [PRECEDENT].
29. The abovesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company shall be considered at the appropriate stage during the later part of this judgement.
30. Now, coming to the age of the deceased, the petitioners, in the claim petition have stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was 25 years of age. In order to prove his age, the petitioner no.1 has relied upon the DAR Ex. PW1/3 which includes the photocopy of the Aadhar Card of the deceased. In the Aadhar Card of the deceased, the year of birth of the deceased has been mentioned as 1993. The date of accident is 23.02.2018. As such, the age of the deceased has to be taken as approximately 25 years of age on the date of the accident.
31. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was doing a private job and earning Rs.20,000/- per month but nothing has been placed on record by the petitioners to show that the deceased was doing the private job and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. As such, to my mind, the petitioners have utterly failed to prove on record the income of the deceased. I am of the opinion that the insurance company has rightly argued that the income of the deceased has to be taken as per the [ACT].
32. Accordingly, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the [ACT] of an Unskilled person. The date of accident was 23.02.2018 on which the minimum wages for an Unskilled person for the relevant period were Rs. 13,584/- per month.
33. Now, coming to the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the insurance on the aspect of dependency, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has relied upon an authority titled as [PRECEDENT] cited as [CASE NUMBER] decided on 15.01.2010 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
34. Whereas on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an authority titled as [PRECEDENT]. Cited as [CASE NUMBER] dated 18.09.2018 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 8.4 has held as under:-
"8.4. The insurance company has submitted that father and the sister of the deceased could not be treated as dependents, and it is only a mother who can be dependent of her son. This contention deserves to be repelled. The deceased was a bachelor, whose mother had pre deceased him. The deceased's father was about 65 years old, and an unmarried sister. The deceased was contributing a part of his meagre income to the family for their sustenance and survival. Hence, they would be entitled to compensation as his dependents".
35. In the said case, the deceased was a bachelor 24 years of age, the father was aged about 65 years and there was unmarried sister also. The father and unmarried sister were taken as dependents upon the deceased bachelor by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
36. Now, in the present case, the deceased who was 25 years of age was also a bachelor. The father of the deceased is aged about 52 years and the unmarried sister of the deceased is aged about 12 years. It is true that the father of the deceased, in his statement recorded by this Court under [ACT] has admitted that he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but the deceased was the bachelor and the mother of the deceased had already pre-deceased him. In the cross- examination, the father of the deceased has stated that his deceased son was working with him as a Helper. As such, to my mind, the ratio of the abovestated authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners is squarely applicable and the petitioners are to be considered as dependents upon the deceased.
37. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ' [PRECEDENT]. Cited as [CASE NUMBER]', the deceased might have been spending one- third of Rs.13,584/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind two dependents on the deceased. Therefore, after deducting one- third towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to Rs. 9056/- =( Rs. 13,584/- less Rs. 4528).
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in [ENTITY] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in [ENTITY], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As [ENTITY] has not taken note of the decision in [ENTITY], which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in [ENTITY] is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of [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 funeral 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."
39. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
40. Going by the ratio of the abovestated authority, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased which is 25 years in the case in hand, accordingly, the multiplier of 18 as per [ENTITY] vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
41. An addition of 40% on account of the future prospects has to be given as the age of the injured was 25 years. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured has to be calculated as Rs.12,678/- (Rs.9056/- + Rs.3622/- (after rounding off Rs.3622.4/-) which is 40% of Rs.9056/-).
42. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '18' ( for the age group of 21 years to 25 years) as mentioned in [ENTITY]'s judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 27,38,448/- = (Rs. 12,678 x 12 x 18).
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "[PRECEDENT] has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. The aforesaid amounts are to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
44. In view of the abovesaid judgment, I hereby award Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
45. Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 27,68,448/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight Only) =( Rs. 27,38,448/- + Rs. 30,000/-) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.3
46. I award Rs. 27,68,448/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 06.06.2018 till the date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several. The petitioner No. 1, the father of the deceased shall have 60% share in the award amount and the petitioner No.2 who is the minor sister of the deceased shall have 40% share in the award amount.
47. The court has examined the petitioner no.1 on 02.09.2019 and his statement has also been considered by this Tribunal.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' ([ACT]).
48. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
49. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent No.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 27,68,448/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight Only) as stated herein above with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, out of which the amount of Rs. 2,68,448/- (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight Only) shall be released to the petitioner no.1 i.e. father of the deceased keeping in view the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and that of the respondents as well and in the entirety of the facts.
50. The rest of the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- shall be kept in 250 equal monthly FDR's for the period of one month to 250 months for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioners in their abovementioned shares. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
51. As stated herein above, since the petitioner No.2 is minor, the amount of his FDRs shall not be released until she reaches the age of majority.
52. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the 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).
(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 pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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 passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of [SECTION].
53. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] in [ENTITY] Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. [ENTITY], Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [emailprotected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
54. Since the offending vehicle, was admittedly insured with the respondent no.3/Insurance Company, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 11.10.2019.
A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the [ACT].
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( [ENTITY] ) On 2nd of September, 2019 P.O. MACT (WEST-01) Delhi/ (02.09.2019) Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date: 2019.09.04 16:01:00 +0530 FORM -IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :- 23.02.2018
2. Name of the deceased :- Sh. [ENTITY]
3. Age of the deceased :- 25 years
4. Occupation of the deceased :- Private Service
5. Income of the deceased :- Rs.13,584/- per month as per [ACT]
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation No. 1. Sh. [ENTITY] DOB: Father of the deceased 01.01.1966 2. [ENTITY] DOB: Minor Sister of the deceased 01.01.2006 Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claim Tribunal 7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.13,584/- 8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% 9. Less-Personal expenses 1/3rd has been deducted of the deceased(C) 10. Monthly loss of Rs.12,678/- dependency[(A+B)-C=D] 11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,52,136/- (Dx12) 13. Total loss of dependency Rs.27,38,448/- (Dx12xE= F) 14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL 15. Compensation for loss of NIL consortium(H) 16. Compensation for loss of Rs.15,000/- estate(I) 17. Compensation towards Rs.15,000/- funeral expenses(J) 18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.27,68,448/- (F+G+H+I+J+=K) 19. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum AWARDED
20. Interest amount up to the Rs. 3,08,681.9(1 year 2 months and 26 date of award (L) days)
21. Total amount including Rs.30,77,129.9/-
interest (K + L)
22. Award amount released Rs.2,68,448/-
23. Award amount kept in Rs.25,00,000/-
24. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant (s).
25. Next date for compliance 11.10.2019 of the award ([ENTITY]) P.O.MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (02.09.2019) 02.09.2019 Present: Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the petitioners alongwith petitioner no.1 in person.
The petitioner no.1 has been examined under [ACT]. Now, to come up for orders at 4 PM.
( [ENTITY] ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (02.09.2019) At 4: 00 PM Present: None Award has been passed separately. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 11.10.2019.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the [ACT].
( [ENTITY] ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi (02.09.2019)