LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of 21 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI New No. 5104316 MACT No. 9914 UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010008472016 1. Smt. [ENTITY] w/o Sh. [ENTITY] (mother of deceased [ENTITY]) 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Raghuvar (father of deceased) 3. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] (brother of deceased) 4. Ms. [ENTITY] d/o Sh. [ENTITY] (sister of deceased) All R/o D2/75, Sector20, Rohini, Delhi. Petitioners/claimants Vs. 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Poornanand R/o D15/95, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi. (Driver cum owner/Respondent No.1) 2. M/s [ENTITY]. (Insurer/Respondent no. 2) Respondents Other details DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.02.2016 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2019 FORM - V 1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO [PRECEDENT]. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018. LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of21 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of 21 1. Date of the accident 15.09.2015 2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 15.02.2016 investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2) 3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 15.02.2016 investigating officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2) 4. Date of filing of Report under [SECTION] Not mentioned in the [ACT] before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR (Clause 10) 5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 15.02.2016 Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 15.02.2016 Company (Clause 11) 7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 15.02.2016 (Clause 11) 8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes. (Clause 16) 9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A later on? 10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes. filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 15.02.2016 by the insurance Company. (Clause20) 13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. [ENTITY], Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate (Clause 20) 14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No. Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20). 15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No. liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A the part of the Designated Officer of the LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of21 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of 21 Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer Legal offer filed but of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) not accepted. 18. Date of the Award 05.02.2019 19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties? (Clause 22) 20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 26.10.2018 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). (Clause 18) 22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 17.01.2019 passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18) 23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above Claimant(s) (Clause 27) 24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner no.1 Smt. claimant(s) and the address of the bank with [ENTITY] savings bank [ACT] & petitioner no. 2 Sh. [ENTITY] savings bank a/c no. 18522043000096 with OBC, Pooth Kalan Branch, Delhi IFSC : ORBC0101852 25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes is near his place of residence? (Clause 27) 26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition. (Clause 27) 27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123, Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427, Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI, be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of21 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 4 of 21 dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in [PRECEDENT]. JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 15.02.2016 with reference to FIR No.995/15 U/[SECTION] [ACT] PS Begumpur and subsequent charge sheet u/[SECTION] [ACT] which was filed in respect of death of Sh. [ENTITY]. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 15.02.2016 treated the same as petition u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] referred to as [ACT]).
The record would show that there are two connected matter arising out of the same accident i.e the present case in respect of death of Sh. [ENTITY] and other is for the injuries sustained by injured [ENTITY]. The matter of Sh. [ENTITY] has already been compromised vide order dated 10.12.2016.
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 15.09.2015, Sh. [ENTITY] (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') along with his friend Sh. [ENTITY] (injured in connected matter) were going on motorcycle no. DL11SK4967 which was being driven by Sh. [ENTITY] to the chemist shop at DMal, Sector 10, Rohini, Delhi for taking medicines for the deceased. At about 5:30 pm, when they reached at 100 feet road, between Sector24, Rohini and Begumpur village and were crossing the divider cut on the said road, suddenly a Swift car bearing registration no. DL2CAL6992 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/R1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle from behind. Due to said impact, they fell down on road, deceased was thrown away from motorcycle, he fell down on the windshield of the offending vehicle and thereafter fell down on the road. They were immediately taken to BSA hospital. It has been submitted that due to serious condition of the deceased, he was shifted to Max Super Specialty hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where during the treatment deceased died on 19.09.2015.
LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 4 of21 The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Delhi vide [CASE NUMBER] wherein the cause of death was opined as due to head injury as a result of blunt force impact and all injuries were antemortem in nature.
3. R1/ Sh. [ENTITY] driver cum owner of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement wherein he has submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance co vide policy no. 360400/31/15/6100005152 w.e.f 05.08.2015 to 04.08.2016 i.e covering the date of accident 15.09.2015. He stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of Mr. [ENTITY] who was driving the motorcycle no. DL11SK4967 in a rash, negligent and zig zag manner. He stated that Mr. [ENTITY] was racing with one white colour Volkswagon Polo car which was trying to over take the said motorcycle from wrong side but Mr. [ENTITY] who was driving the said motorcycle was not giving the side to Polo car. He stated that suddenly said car collided with said motorcycle, public persons gathered at the spot, the driver of the Polo car ran away from the spot with the car and someone from the public smashed the front glass of the offending vehicle.
4. The National Insurance Company Ltd./R2 has also filed legal offer of Rs. 10,58,832/ which was not accepted by the petitioners. It has interalia admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide policy [CASE NUMBER] w.e.f 05.08.2015 to 04.08.2016 in the name of R1 i.e covering the date of accident 15.09.2015.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the ld predecessor of this court vide order dated 14.09.2016: (1) Whether on 15.09.2015 at about 5:45 pm, at 100 foota road, Begumpur, Delhi, one Swift car bearing registration no. DL2CAL 6992, which was being driven rashly and negligently by [ENTITY] hit motorcycle bearing registration no. DL11SK4967 and caused the death of [ENTITY] and injuries to Sh. [ENTITY] ? OPP (2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 5 of21 amount and from whom? OPP (3). Relief.
6. Petitioners have examined Sh. [ENTITY] (father of deceased) as PW1, Sh. [ENTITY] (eye witness/other injured) as PW2 and Sh. [ENTITY] as PW3.
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioners, ld counsel for R1 and ld counsel for insurance co/R2. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. 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] (eye witness) as PW2. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/1.
He deposed that 15.09.2015, he along with Sh. [ENTITY] ( 'deceased') were going on motorcycle no. DL11SK4967 which was being driven by him to the chemist shop at DMal, Sector10, Rohini, Delhi for taking medicines for the deceased. He deposed that at about 5:30 pm, when they reached at 100 feet road, between Sector24, Rohini and Begumpur village and they were crossing the divider cut on the said road, suddenly a Swift car bearing registration no. DL2CAL6992 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver/R1 in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle from behind. He deposed that due to said impact, they fell down on road, deceased was thrown away from motorcycle, he fell down on the windshield of the offending vehicle and thereafter fell down on the road. He deposed that deceased suffered serious injuries on his head and different parts of his body. He deposed that the offending vehicle stopped at some distance after hitting and the people gathered there who had took out the LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 6 of21 driver from the offending vehicle. He deposed that he had seen the driver and had read the registration number of the offending vehicle. He deposed that they were immediately taken to BSA hospital. He deposed that due to serious condition of deceased, he was shifted to Max Super Specialty hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where during the treatment he died on 19.09.2015. He deposed that the said accident was solely caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1. He deposed that FIR No. 995/15 dated 15.09.15 was also registered by the police.
As per record, R1 who is the driver cum owner of offending vehicle did not cross examine PW2 and as such, he would be deemed to admit the testimony of PW2 regarding the fact that the accident occurred at the above said date and place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
During his cross examination on behalf of the insurance co/R2, PW2 has inter alia deposed that he was about 2425 years of age at the time of accident which occurred on 15.09.2015. He deposed that he was driving the bike with registration No. DL11SK4967 with [ENTITY] as a pillion rider at the time of the accident and that he was the registered owner of said bike. He denied the suggestion that at the relevant time, the said bike was being driven by [ENTITY](deceased) or that [ENTITY] (deceased) was also not having any driving licence. He deposed that deceased had suffered some injury on his nose due to falling from stairs in his house and as such they were going to the chemist shop to purchase a steamer for him. He denied the suggestions that deceased suffered head injuries after falling from the stairs or that deceased took treatment for head injuries after falling from stairs or that he expired due to the said head injuries.
PW2 deposed that there was a divider on the road where the accident took place and that there was no zebra crossing at the spot of accident. He deposed that there was a cut in the divider for the passing of the vehicles. He denied the suggestion that it was only a very small cut for the walking of LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 7 of21 pedestrians. He deposed that the said cut was about 2025 feet in width. He volunteered that the accident had occurred after crossing the said cut and that the said cut was immaterial as neither their bike nor the offending vehicle/car used the said cut and the said car hit their bike from behind. He deposed that the speed of their bike was about 40 Kms per hour at the time of the accident. He deposed that he could not exactly tell the speed of the offending car as it had hit the bike from back side, however, from the impact of the accident he could say that it was being driven at a very fast speed of about 7080 Kms per hour. He deposed that the offending car had struck the bike from its back and not from its side. He denied the suggestion that it was a head on collision between the vehicles or that he was driving his bike on a wrong side. He admitted that immediately after the accident due to the impact, deceased who was sitting as a pillion rider got jumped and fell on the front wind screen of the offending car. He denied the suggestion that as it was a head on collision and he was driving his bike on a wrong side, the deceased got jumped over him as an impact and fell on the front wind screen of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestions that he was also driving his bike at a very fast speed and in a rash manner or that the accident took place due to his own negligence. He deposed that he had seen the driver of the offending car as the public had stopped it and the said driver was taken out by the public. He deposed that he did not smell the mouth of the driver of the offending car, however from his activities he seemed drunk.
Nothing material has appeared in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his testimony regarding the date, time and place and the manner in which the case accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle by driving it in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of PW2 is trustworthy and can be relied upon.
The copy of criminal case record would show that the case FIR No. 995/15 u/[SECTION] [ACT] PS Begumpur was registered and that the charge sheet u/s [SECTION] also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 8 of21 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet u/s [SECTION] R1 can be relied upon to show that the case accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving the offending vehicle.
The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Delhi vide [CASE NUMBER] wherein the cause of death was opined as due to head injury as a result of blunt force impact and all injuries were antemortem in nature.
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, testimony of PW2 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 on which deceased was pillion rider thereby causing his death.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
(a) PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] ( father of the deceased) has deposed through his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the DAR as Ex. PW1/1 (colly), copy of wrestling certificate of deceased as Ex. PW1/3 (colly), copy of aadhar card and ration card of LR's of deceased as Ex. PW1/4, two salary certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/5 & Ex. PW1/6 and two medical LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 9 of21 bills as Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
During cross examination as conducted by insurance co/R2 he deposed that he was not an eye witness to the case accident.
The copy of driving licence of deceased is on record which shows the date of birth of deceased as 15.09.1990, hence, on the date of accident (15.09.2015), deceased was aged about 25 years.
Petitioners have examined Sh. [ENTITY] as PW3. He deposed that he is the proprietor of The Tyson Gym situated at B180, Balbir Vihar, Sector20, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that deceased [ENTITY] was working with the said gym since May, 2013 as trainer as a part time employee with duty timings from 6:00 am to 8:00 am and 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. He deposed that the salary of deceased was Rs. 10,000/ per month and the salary certificate issue after the death of the deceased has been proved as Ex. PW3/A. During his cross examination as conducted on behalf of respondent no.2, PW2 deposed that the said certificate has been issued after the death of the deceased. He deposed that he had no record to show that the deceased was working as a part time employee with the abovesaid gym. He deposed that he had not brought any document to show that he was the proprietor of the above said gym. He deposed that he used to pay Rs. 10,000/ per month in cash to deceased. He deposed that he did not maintain any register regarding the employees and that could not show any receipt or any bank account record to prove that he used to pay Rs. 10,000/ per month to the deceased or that he was his part time employee.
Although PW3 has proved on record salary certificate but it was an admitted position that it was issued after the death of the deceased. It was further an admitted position that there was no record to show that the deceased was working as a part time employee in the said gym. No register was also maintained by PW3 regarding his employee or payment made to them. PW3 could not show any receipt or any bank account record to prove that he used to pay Rs. 10,000/ per month to the deceased or that he was his LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 10 of21 part time employee.
In view of above said facts, the petitioners/claimants and PW3 have not properly proved the work or monthly income of the deceased. No witness was examined from Shanu Maintenance qua salary certificate Ex. PW1/6. In facts no reliance can be placed on salary certificates Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW3/A. Petitioners have thus failed to properly prove the monthly income of the deceased.
Further, petitioners have placed on record the statement of Marks of B.A. (Programme) PartII of the deceased which shows that deceased was a second year student of Delhi University.
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. 10,998/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 10,998/ 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, LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 11 of21 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 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 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 12 of21 sweep of just compensation under [SECTION] of [ACT].
The age of the deceased, as discussed above, in the present case was about 25 years. 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 of 40 years at the time of his death.
The monthly income of the deceased is thus calculated as Rs. 10,998/+40% of 10,998/ which comes to Rs. 10,998/+ Rs.4399/(after rounding off). = Rs.15,397/.
(c) Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased:
Claimants are the parents, major brother and sister of deceased. PW1 (father of the deceased) has deposed in his cross examination that he work as private electrician and earn about Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 15,000/ per month, the deceased was unmarried and was aged about 25 years at the time of his death. He further deposed that he has a wife, one daughter namely Ms. [ENTITY] aged about 21 years and one son namely [ENTITY] aged about 25 years. Since the brother and sister are major they cannot be taken as dependents upon the deceased. The father of deceased is also not dependent upon the deceased.
In the present case, the deceased was unmarried and his mother is only dependent, hence, there was only one dependent upon the deceased. 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 25 years at LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 13 of21 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. As per the case of [ENTITY] (Supra), the multiplier of 18 is to be adopted when the age of the victim is between 21 years to 25 years. 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. 16,62,876/ [i.e. Rs. 15,397/ ( per month income of the deceased) X12 X18 (multiplier) X1/2 (dependency)].
10. 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.
The deceased was a bachelor. 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, as relied upon by the ld counsel for petitioner, that in case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. It was further held that Filial Consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in case of an accidental death of a child, an accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased, the greatest agony for a parents is to lose their child during their life time and children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
In facts of the present case and in terms of above said judgment, the parents are awarded Rs. 40,000/ for loss of Filial Consortium.
LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 14 of21 11. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pooja & Ors, MAC Appeal 798/2011, 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.
12. Medical Bills.
PW1 has proved the medical bills as Ex. PW1/7 (colly). The total of the said bills comes to Rs. 2,26,400/. The same is granted under this head.
13. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 16,62,876/ Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/ Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/ Medical bills Rs. 2,26,400/ Total Rs. 19,59,276/ [Rounded off to Rs. 19,59,500/]
(Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Five hundred only) The claimants/petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 15.02.2016 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 15 of21 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.
14. Liability In the case in hand, the National Insurance co./R2 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
15. 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]., National Insurance co./R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 19,59,500/ 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 R2/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the [ENTITY] as per rules. R2/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
16. Statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 [ACT] was recorded. 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 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 16 of21 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, on realization, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ be given to father of deceased Sh.[ENTITY] and from the same an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to him in his savings bank account a/c no. 18522043000096 with OBC, Pooth Kalan 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 her name in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 36 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
Remaining amount be given to Smt. [ENTITY] who is mother of deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ be released to her in her savings bank account a/c no. 18522043000097 with OBC bank, Pooth Kalan branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 [ACT]) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 72 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 72 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in case of [PRECEDENT] with respect to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 17 of21
(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 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.
17. Relief As discussed above, R2/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 19,59,500/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 15.02.2016 till realization within the jurisdiction of this LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 18 of21 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 R2/insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R2 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. 2 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.
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 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], the joint statement of petitioners was also recorded wherein they stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they shall submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
18. 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. Insurance co. is directed to obtain the copy of PAN Card of petitioners from the court record. AMIT by [ENTITY] Date: 2019.02.05 18:07:28 +0530 Announced in open court ([ENTITY]) on 05th February 2019 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 19 of21 FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 15.09.15
2. Name of deceased: [ENTITY]
3. Age of the deceased: 25 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the deceased:15,397/ per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation (i) Smt. [ENTITY] 49 years Mother (ii) Sh. Ram 54 years Father (iii) (iv) (iv) Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 10,998/ . 8. AddFuture Prospects (B) 40%= Rs. 4399/ 9. LessPersonal expenses of the 1/2 deceased (C ) 10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.76,989/ { (A+B) - C =D} 11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 92,388/
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs. 16,62,984/ = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 2,26,400/
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 40,000/ (Filial LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 20 of21 consortium (I) Consortium)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/ expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 19,59,500/ (F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 5,14,366/ award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 24,73,866/ (L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/ to the petitioners.
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 22,73,866/
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 19.03.2019.
award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date: BANSAL 2019.02.05 18:07:37 +0530 ([ENTITY]) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 05.02.2019 LR' of [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 21 of21