[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Dar- Fulookali Shakya vs Ccl-Karam Jeet Singh on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 467/2024
CNR No. DLSH01-004457-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Mrs. Fulookali Shakya (wife of deceased Kamlesh Shakya)
2. Sh. Nakse Shakya (Father of deceased Kamlesh Shakya)
3. Ms. Ramkali (Mother of deceased Kamlesh Shakya)
4. Ms. Anjali (Daughter of deceased Kamlesh Shakya)
5. Sh. Sanjay Shakya (Minor son of deceased Kamlesh Shakya)
Petitioner no. 05 being minor represented through petitioner no. 01 being
natural guardian.
All R/o Village-Bagheli, Bahadur Pura, Dist. Bhind, M.P.
........ (Petitioners)
Vs.
1. CCL Karamjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Gurucharan Singh,
R/o H. No. 1/2483, Gali no. 3, Moti Ram Road,
Shahdara, Delhi.
.... (Driver)
2. Sh. Gurucharan Singh
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh,
R/o H. No. 1/2483, Gali no. 3, Moti Ram Road,
Shahdara, Delhi.
.... (Owner)
3. Ms. Harkirtan Kaur,
W/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh,
R/o H. No. 172, Dhandra Road, GK Vihar,
Satjout Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:16:56
+0530
.... (Registered Owner)
... Respondents
Date of institution of DAR petition : 18.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 19.07.2025
Date of Award : 19.07.2025
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioners : Sh. Shekhar Aggarwal
For respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 : None.
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the DAR petition arising
out of FIR No. 254/24, u/s 279/304-A IPC, PS GTB Enclave, Delhi, treated
as claim petition filed for the petitioners and against the respondents as
mentioned in the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that on 10.05.2024, at about
09:00 a.m. one Kamlesh Shakya (since deceased) was hit by a scooty bearing
registration no. PB10FT8453 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle)
near ITB Flyover, Yamaha Showroom, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi within
the jurisdiction of PS GTB Enclave, Delhi. It has been alleged that the said
offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1)
herein, in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions
and without blowing any horn at the time of the accident. It has been further
alleged that due to the forceful impact of the hit from the offending vehicle,
Kamlesh Shakya fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. He was
immediately taken to GTB hospital, where he expired during his treatment on
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:05
+0530
11.05.2024. The postmortem was thereon conducted at mortuary of GTB
Hospital, Delhi, vide PM No. 764/2024. An FIR in this regard was also
registered at PS GTB Enclave, Delhi, vide FIR no. 254/24, for the offences u/s
279/304-A IPC. The present DAR petition thereafter came to be filed in due
course on 18.07.2024 and a supplementary DAR against the resigtered owner
of the offending vehicle ie. Respondent no. 03 (R3), came to be filed later on
31.05.2025.
2. Copies of DAR petition were supplied to all the parties in due course
of proceedings.
WS / Reply of Respondents
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 ie. driver and owner of the offending vehicle
respectively, failed to file their WS despite being granted several
opportunities and they even failed to appear before the Tribunal
subsequently, due to which both of them were proceeded ex-parte vide
order dated 28.08.2024. The respondent no. 03 ie. the registered owner of
the offending vehicle also failed to file the reply to the DAR within
stipulated period of time as per law, while the offending vehicle was
reportedly uninsured at the time of the accident.
ISSUES
4. For the proper adjudication of the matter, following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.08.2024, as under:-
(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on
account of accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while
driving vehicle no. PB10FT8453 on 10.05.2024 at about 09:00 am on road
Flyover, Near Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi within theMACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:11
+0530
jurisdiction of PS GTB Enclave which caused the death of deceased Sh.
Kamlesh Shakya? OPP.
(ii) Relief. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined Ms. Fulookali
Shakya ie. wife of the deceased, as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way
of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of deponent
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner Anjali
3. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner Sanjay
Shakya
4. Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner Nakse
5. Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner
Ramkali
6. Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the deceased
Kamlesh Shakya
7. Ex. PW1/7 (colly) DAR
She was not cross-examined despite opportunities being given in this
regard to the respondents and was accordingly discharged.
6. PE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dt. 13.12.2024, in
view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioners recorded to
this effect.
7. RE was thereafter closed by the Tribunal vide order dt. 22.02.2025, in
view of the separate statement of respondent no. 02 recorded to this effect,
while the defence of R3 remained struck off and she did not participate in
the inquiry of this matter in any manner.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:17
+0530
Issue wise findings
Issue no.1
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of
accident occured due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving
vehicle no. PB10FT8453 on 10.05.2024 at about 09:00 am on road Flyover,
Near Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS GTB Enclave which caused the death of deceased Sh.
Kamlesh Shakya? OPP.
8. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases
and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of
probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court
and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or
beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The
burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this
burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard
can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors,
2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in
another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law
Suit (SC) 303.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:26
+0530
9. In the present case, the petitioners have examined the wife of the
deceased as their star witness to prove the contentions regarding the claim
for compensation arising out of death of Kamlesh Shakya in the accident as
PW1. The said PW-1 has categorically stated in her examination on oath
that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent no.
1 in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The claim put
forth by the petitioners and the contentions regarding the rash and negligent
act of R1 in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident is duly
corroborated by the findings of the IO/police as mentioned in the site plan,
mechanical inspection report, seizure memo, Charge sheet, postmortem
report along with other documents pertaining to criminal case in respect of
the incident in question brought on record as Ex. PW1/7 and no ground has
been made out by the respondents to disbelieve the same. The testimony of
PW1 for the petitioners has remained consistent and no doubt has been
raised by the respondents to disbelieve the same.
10. At the same time, respondent no.1 i.e. driver, respondent no. 02 i.e.
owner of the offending vehicle and R3 ie. registered owner of the offending
vehicle, have neither impeached the testimony of PW-1 nor they have led
any defence evidence to substantiate their claim that the accident was
caused due to fault of the deceased or that they have been falsely implicated
in the present case. The evidence of the star witness in this case i.e. PW-1,
on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no.1 while driving the
offending vehicle, has remained unimpeached and her testimony has to be
accepted on its face value itself as the same has not been cross-examined in
any manner by the respondents.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:34
+0530
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an
accused in case FIR No. 254/24, PS GTB Enclave, Delhi, for the offences
u/s 279/304A IPC is itself a strong circumstance to support the above said
testimony of PW-1 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan, report u/s
173 Cr.PC, mechanical inspection report and postmortem report, brought on
record as Ex. PW1/7 also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1.
12. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 namely CCL Karamjeet Singh
was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to
challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident
and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference
on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view
of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi). Furthermore,
the position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of
“National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana”, 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it
has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence
and involvement of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been
made in the case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and
Ors.“, 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the
criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle,
whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the
police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against
the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are
sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the
accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a caseMACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:41
+0530
where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then
the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident
particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the
Learned Tribunal.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending
vehicle was being driven by R-1 indeed at the time of incident and the fatal
injuries to the deceased took place on account of the incident in question
itself.
14. Furthermore, in view of the medical records, postmortem report
placed on record by the petitioners, no doubt or dispute is left regarding the
fatal injuries to the deceased Kamlesh Shakya in the above accident.
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that
the deceased Kamlesh Shakya suffered fatal injuries on account of neglect
and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
The issue at hand is thus decided against the respondents and in favour of
the petitioners.
Issue no. 02
Relief
16. On the basis of findings upon issue no. (i), it is clear that the incident
in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by R-1 and fatal injuries had been caused to the deceased in the
incident. Hence, petitioners being the LRs and dependents of the deceased
are entitled to compensation in this case as the claim of the petitioners being
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:47
+0530
dependents of the deceased has neither been denied nor disputed in any
manner by the respondents during the entire proceedings.
17. The issue at hand is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners
and against the respondents.
LIABILITY
18. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Karamjeet Singh is the
principal tort feasor being driver of the offending vehicle. At the same
time, the owner of the offending vehicle is vicariously liable for the acts of
the driver. It is an apparent fact on record that the R3 namely Ms. Harkirtan
Kaur happens to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle till date.
Therefore, the R3 being the registered owner is liable to make the payment
of compensation being the owner within the meaning of section 2 (30) of
the M.V. Act, and as also held by Hon’ble Supreme court in case titled as
Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar AIR 2018 SC (Civil) 1459.
However, it has been reported in the DAR that the said offending
vehicle was under the control, supervision and in possession of R2 ie.
Gurcharan Singh at the time of the accident. The notice issued u/s 133 M.V.
Act by the IO to the said respondents i.e. R2 and R3 respectively,
substantiates the said possession of control of R2 over the offending
vehicle. Perusal of the case file reveals that a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was
indeed served upon R2 and R3 and that the same also bears the signatures
of R2 and R3 respectively. The said document has been brought on record
by the IO as part of supplementary DAR and no material has been brought
on record by the R-2 or R-3 to disprove its contents. In such circumstances
as revealed no record, it is apparent that the ownership by possession of the
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:52
+0530
offending vehicle was with R2 at the time of the accident and that his son
i.e. R1 was driving the offending vehicle as his agent. In such
circumstances the position of the law has been laid down in case titled as
Vaibhav Jain Vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.
10192/2024) (arising out of SLP (C) No. 29868/2018) wherein it has been
held that;
“definition of “owner” u/s 2 (19) of the old M.V. Act is not
exhaustive and that it has to be construed in a wider sense based
on the facts and circumstances of the given case; and it must
include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession
and control of the vehicle and under whose direction and
command the driver is obliged to operate the same. It was also
observed that to confine the meaning of owner to the registered
owner only would not be proper where the vehicle is in the actual
possession and control of the hirer at the time of the accident”.
Moreover, in another case titled as Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang
and another [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394;2024 INSC 289, it has been held that;
“mere failure to get registered the name of the new owner of
an already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift
transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle, despite
being physically handed over to the new owner, cannot, by any
stretch of imagination be treated as still being in the possession and
control of the former owner”.
19. Therefore in the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, it is sufficiently
proved on record on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that R2
namely Gurcharan Singh was indeed the person in actual physical
possession and control of the offending vehicle and its driver. Thus, the said
respondent is hereby held to be the owner of the offending vehicle at the
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:17:58
+0530
time of the accident and he is further held to be vicariously liable for the acts
of his son/driver i.e. respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. Accordingly, R1, R2
and R3 are hereby held liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the
petitioners jointly and severally.
20. The issue at hand is thus decided against the respondents and in
favour of the petitioners accordingly.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
21. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the same shall
be under the following heads :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. It is clear from above stated facts and circumstances that the deceased
had expired soon after the accident and no medical expenditure was
undertaken by the petitioners in the treatment of the deceased before his
death. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under this
head on account of absence of any evidence brought on record in this
regard.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
23. In the present case, perusal of the Aadhar card of deceased Kamlesh
Shakya Ex. PW1/6 reveals that date of birth of the deceased was 30.06.1983
and the same has not been disputed in any manner by the respondents.
Therefore, the deceased was thus aged about 40 years 10 months at the time
of the incident resulting in his death on 10.05.2024.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 19
HARUN
PRATAP
Digitally signed by
HARUN PRATAP
Date: 2025.07.19
24. Petitioner no. 01 Ms. Fulooki Shakya (PW1) in her deposition has
stated that at the time of accident, her deceased husband was doing a private
job and and that he used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month. However, the
petitioners have failed to file any document or material on record to
substantiate the said claims. The petitioners have neither contended nor
proved any educational qualifications of the deceased nor any material has
been brought on record to show that the deceased possessed any specific
skills. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the deceased and his entire
family were residents of M.P. at the time of the accident. Therefore, in
absence of any documents filed on record to show that deceased used to
earn Rs. 25,000/-, this Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at
parity with minimum wages of “unskilled worker” in M.P. prevalent at the
time of accident i.e. Rs. 11,800/- per month.
25. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as
“National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC
680″, 40% addition shall be given to the deceased towards future prospects
as he was below 40 years at the time of incident and was self employed.
Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased with 40% future prospects
comes out to be Rs. 11,800/- + 4,720/- (11,800/- X 40/100) = Rs. 16,520/-
per month.
26. As held above, the deceased Kamlesh Shakya was married and having
his parents, wife and 2 children dependent upon him on the date of the
incident. Therefore, all 5 original petitioners shall be treated as dependents
of the deceased for the purpose of the present petition. Accordingly, 1/4th of
the earnings of the deceased Kamlesh Shakya shall be deducted towards his
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:18:31
+0530
personal and living expenses. Therefore, in the entire given facts and
circumstances, deduction of 1/4th of total income is made for personal
living expenses of deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs. 4,130/- (Rs.
16,520/4) is required to be deducted from monthly income of deceased.
Finally, annual dependency of dependent is calculated as under (annual
income) – (annual expenses of deceased) i.e. (Rs. 1,98,240/- – Rs.
49,560/-) = Rs. 1,48,680/- per annum.
27. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of “Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr“., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ” National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors“. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014,
decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of ’15’ is held applicable for
calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of
death of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
total loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes out to
be Rs. 1,48,680/- X 15= Rs. 22,30,200/-.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
28. In “Magma Vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors“.
2018 ACJ 2782, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
‘consortium’ is a compendious term, which encompasses ‘spousal
consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his entire family.
Spousal Consortium allows compensation to surviving spouse for loss of
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:18:43
+0530
‘company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed in said
judgment that parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of ‘parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training. Similarly, filial consortium is to
be granted to each of the surviving dependent parents on the death of their
child.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the computation of
compensation under this head is as follows :
Filial Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2)
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 1)
Parental Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2)
30. Hence, the petitioners are hereby awarded a total sum of Rs.
2,40,000/- on account of loss of consortium/loss of love and affection under
this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
31. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioners under
both the heads i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.18,000/-
for ‘funeral expenses’ of the deceased, as per the law laid down in “National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (Supra).
32. The total amount of compensation to be granted in favour of the
petitioners in this case is thus Rs. 22,30,200/- + Rs. 2,40,000/- + Rs.
36,000/- = Rs. 25,06,200/-.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:18:49
33. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioners are
hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 25,06,200/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Six
Thousand Two Hundred Only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of filing of DAR till its deposition by respondent no. 1, 2 & 3
jointly and severally. However, it is directed that the amount of interim
award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of
compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONERS
34. As per the statements of the petitioners recorded in this regard by the
Tribunal, none of the dependents were earning anything and petitioners had
their bank accounts in UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The photocopy of
the passbooks of the bank accounts of the petitioners maintained with
respective Banks, were also placed on record by the petitioners.
Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by
the petitioners, apart from two photographs each of the petitioners.
35. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 01
namely Fulookali Shakya ie. wife of the deceased, is hereby awarded a sum
of Rs. 11,06,200/-, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- is directed to be kept with
UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no.
20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 50
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in
FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:18:54
+0530
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT
Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
Remaining amount of Rs. 1,06,200/- and the interest component to be paid
by the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally is also directed to be
released into her account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by her as
per her volition.
36. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 02 namely
Nakse Shakya i.e. father of the deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no.
20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 15
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 15 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in
FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT
Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
37. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 03 namely
Ramkali i.e. mother of the deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no.
20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 15
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 15 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in
FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:19:00
+0530
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT
Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
38. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 04 namely
Anjali i.e. daughter of the deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.
4,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no.
20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 20
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in
FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT
Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
39. Out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 5 i.e. minor son of
deceased namely Sanjay Shakya is awarded a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the
same is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch,
Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in
MACAD in an FDR till the date he attains age of maturity, as per the
scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated
08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir
Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their
savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD
Branch, Delhi.
40. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be
subject to the following conditions:-
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:19:06
+0530
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioners with the
statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and
maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant
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.
41. Respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally, are directed to deposit
the award amount with interest @ 8 % per annum till date jointly and
severally with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as
per above order, failing which respondents no. 01, 02 & 03 shall be liable to
pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager,
UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share
amount of the petitioners in their bank accounts / FDRs as per above-said
directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch
Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in
name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants
approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:19:13
+0530
interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be
uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e.
https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
42. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of
the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to
counsel for the respondents/insurance company for compliance. Copy of
this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of
bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to
Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court
on this 19th Day of July, 2025 Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.19
16:19:20
+0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO (MACT), SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 467/24 DAR- Fulookali Shakya and Ors. VS. CCL Karamjeet Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 19
[ad_2]
Source link