Delhi District Court
Lrs Of M. Krishnan vs Banna on 24 January, 2025
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 479/2018
CNR No. : DLNW01-007615-2018
LRs of M. Krishnan:-
1. K. Vasanti Krishnan @ K. Yasanti Krishnan
W/o Late Sh. M. Krishnan,
R/o H.No. E-408, Shakurpur,
J.J. Colony, Delhi-1100034
(Expired on 20.04.2021)
2. Kulandayee @ Kolandi,
W/o Late Sh. Mushian
R/o H.No. E-408, Shakurpur,
J.J. Colony, Delhi-1100034
(expired on 27.10.2019)
(NOC in favour of petitioner no.3)
3. K. Kannan,
S/o Late Sh.M. Krishnan
R/o H.No. E-408, Shakurpur,
J.J. Colony, Delhi-1100034
(Legal heir of petitioner no.1 &
NOC holder qua share of Petitioner no.2)
4. Jayshree Ravi Devender
W/o Ravi Devender
D/o Late Sh. M. Krishnan
R/o Opp. Navjivan Society Kokan Nagar,
R.R.C. Marg, Chembur Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400074
(Legal Heir of Petitioner no.1)
........ Petitioners/claimants
MACT No. 479/18 Page 1 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
Versus
1. Banna
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
R/o H-4/1577, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi-110033
....... Driver /R1
2. Jahangir Alam
S/o Sh. Pasriddun Ahmad
R/o CN-13, 3rd Floor,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085
........ Owner/R2
3. Sajjad
S/o Sh. Janul Hak
R/o H.No. 259, Rajapur Gaon,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085
........ 2nd Owner/R3
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
At Oriental House,
A-25/27. Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002
........ Insurance Co./R4
Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.07.2018
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.01.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.01.2025
FORM - V
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 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI
Vs. JAIBIR SINGH and ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 2 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 19.12.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.07.2018
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.07.2018
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 16.07.2018
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 16.07.2018
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 16.07.2018
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 16.07.2018
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Ms. Umesh Kaushal,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
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.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
MACT No. 479/18 Page 3 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer Legal offer not filed
of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 09.01.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 07.03.2023
to open saving bank account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar
Card and the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 15.01.2024 &
passbook of their saving bank account near the 10.09.2024
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioners K. Kannan,
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with savings bank A/c
IFSC Code no.60447095261,
Jaishree Ravi
Devender, saving bank
A/c no.60447094857
both with Bank of
Maharashtra, Rani
Bagh Branch, Delhi
IFSC:MAHB0001777
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 4 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 41065170303,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was
filed in this case on 16.07.2018, with reference to FIR No. 607/17, as
registered U/s 279/304A IPC, PS Subhash Place, Delhi, in respect of
fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased M. Krishnan (hereinafter
referred as deceased), in a road traffic accident, on 19.12.2017, at
about 7.00 pm, at Britania Chowk Flyover, towards Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated
16.07.2018, treated the DAR, as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act’).
Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Banna S/o
Ram Kishan, driver of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred as
driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1), for the
commission of offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR and
documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased
(hereinafter referred as petitioners/claimants), are that, on 19.12.2017,
at about 6.30 am, when the deceased was going on his duty, he was
hit by a Wagon-R car, bearing registration No. DL-1R-TB-3658
MACT No. 479/18 Page 5 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), at Britania Chowk
Flyover, towards Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. It was further averred that at
the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and
negligent manner, by its driver Banna S/o Ram Kishan. It was further
averred that after the accident, the deceased was taken to Muni Maya
Ram Jain Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
MRJ Hospital), where he was declared brought dead, vide MLC No.
1176, dated 19.12.2017.
3. The postmortem on the body of the deceased, was conducted at Baba
Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, vide Postmortem Report
(PMR) No.957/2017, dated 19.12.2017, wherein the cause of death
has been mentioned as combined effect of cerebral damage and
hemorrhagic shock and their complications, consequent upon multiple
injuries (fractures), as a result of blunt trauma to the body. It was
further mentioned that all injuries were ante mortem in nature, recent
in duration and could be possible in the manner, as mentioned in the
police inquest papers, i.e. road traffic accident.
4. As per the contents of the DAR/claim petition, at the time of accident,
the offending vehicle was driven by Banna S/o Ram Kishan/R1, the
same was registered in the name of Jahangir Alam S/o Parsiddun
Ahmad (hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/R2),
but, found to be in possession of Sajjad S/o Janul Hak (herein after
referred as possessory owner/R3), and was insured with Oriental
MACT No. 479/18 Page 6 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the insurance
company/R4).
5. R1, R2 and R3, though appeared at the time of filing of DAR
however, they have chosen not to file any written statement,
consequently, their defence was struck off, vide order dated
28.11.2018 and thereafter, they were proceeded Ex-parte, vide order
dated 18.12.2023.
6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/R4, the insurer of the
offending vehicle, has filed its written statement, in which, it has
taken the defence that the offending vehicle is a commercial vehicle
but, driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid commercial
driving license, at the time of accident, as R1 was holding a driving
license no. P08112006504879, which was meant for LMV(NT) &
Motorcycle. R4 however admitted that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was duly insured with R4, vide policy no.
215700/31/2018/102706, valid for the period 30.08.2017 to
29.08.2018.
7. Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the written statement of
R4/insurance company, where they have reiterated the averments
made in the DAR/claim petition and denied any collusion between the
petitioners and respondents.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 7 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the
Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 14.11.2018:-
(1) Whether on 19.12.2017 at about 6.30 am at Britania Chowk
Flyover, towards Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, one Wagon R car bearing
registration No. DL-1LR-TB-3658, which was being driven
rashly and negligently by Banna, hit M. Krishnan and caused his
death? OPP
(2). Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom? OPP
(3) Relief.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to
prove their respective versions, by leading evidence in support of the
same.
10. In support of their case, the petitioners examined Smt. K. Vasanti
Krishnan @ K. Yasanti Krishnan, as PW1, by way of evidence
affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The deposition of PW1, as to the manner of
accident, rashness and negligence of R1, in causing the accident and
death of the deceased M. Krishnan, as a result of the injuries,
sustained in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of DAR
and FIR. She further deposed that after death of the deceased, she and
her other family members have spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/-
towards funeral expenses, last rituals and attending ceremonies. She
further deposed that at the time of his death, the deceased was aged
MACT No. 479/18 Page 8 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
about 50 years and was maintaining good health and physique. She
further deposed that the deceased was working as Lift Attendant, with
Pro Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd., at Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana
and was earning more than Rs. 18,000/- per month. PW1 further
deposed that the deceased used to do overtime and was earning
approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month, for the same. She further
deposed that the total income of the deceased was more than Rs.
24,000/- per month. She further deposed that the deceased was the
only earning member in their family. PW1 deposed that she is a
housewife and not doing any work. PW1 deposed that after the death
of the deceased, she along with her son and her mother-in law, aged
about 90 years, are hand to mouth and have no money to survive. She
further deposed that the deceased has also taken loan of Rs.
15,00,000/-, from the builder, for raising construction/development of
the house and after death of the deceased, all the liabilities fell on her
shoulder. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance upon photocopy of
her Aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1 and DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW1/2
(Colly).
11. PW1 was also been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company/R4, wherein she deposed that she is not an eye witness of
the case accident. She admitted that she has not filed any document,
regarding expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/-, towards last rites of her
deceased husband. She further admitted that she has not filed any
document, to show the loan amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, from the builders.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 9 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
She denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not working
anywhere and not earning Rs. 24,000/- per month, at the time of
accident. She further denied the suggestion that she has filed false
evidence by way of affidavit. She was not been cross-examined by
R1, R2 and R3.
12. The petitioners further examined ASI Banwari Lal as PW2, who
deposed that after the accident, after receiving first call from PCR, he
reached at the spot, investigated the accident, prepared the site plan,
and seizure memo of Wagon-R, bearing registration no.
DL-1RT-3658. He further deposed that the eye witness of the accident
had handed over to him, the keys of the offending vehicle. He further
deposed that he had recorded the statement of eye witness i.e. Mr.
Yuvraj Pokhral, R/o P-29, Air Force Station, Arjan Garh, Delhi,
mobile no. 8800908196 and of other witnesses, U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He
further deposed that initial investigation has been done by him. He
further deposed that all the documents related to the investigation, are
present in the DAR, under his signatures, which is already Ex.PW1/2.
13. PW2 was also been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company/R4, wherein he deposed that PCR call has been received
from the mobile no. 8800908196, of the eye witness. He further
deposed that he has received the call at 7.00 am, on 19.12.2017. He
further deposed that when he reached at the spot, the deceased had
already been taken to the hospital. He further deposed that when he
MACT No. 479/18 Page 10 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
reached the hospital, the deceased had already expired.
14. In its defence, R4 examined Sh. Ajit Kumar Lakra, its Deputy
Manager as R4W1, who led his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.R4W1/A, wherein he deposed that driver of the offending vehicle
DL-1RTB-3658 was not holding valid driving license, at the time of
accident. He further deposed that as per verification report qua the
driving license of R1, R1 was having a driving license no.
P08112006504879, which was valid for LMV (NT) and motorcycle
but, at the time of accident, R1 was driving a commercial vehicle. He
further deposed that the said driving license is not valid for
commercial vehicle and it is a breach of terms and conditions of the
policy. He further deposed that counsel for the insurance company
had sent a legal notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, to the driver, registered
owner and owner of the offending vehicle, bearing registration no.
DL-1RTB-3658, by speed post. In his evidence, R4W1 has placed
reliance upon insurance policy of vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1R-TB-3658 as Ex. R4W1/1, Legal Notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC
as Ex. R4W1/2, Original Postal Receipts as Ex. R4W1/3, Original
Postal Letters as Ex. R4W1/4 to Ex. R4W1/7. R4W1 was not been
cross-examined by the petitioners, R1, R2 and R3.
15. The remaining respondents failed to lead any evidence in their
defence, at the stage of respondents’ evidence.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 11 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
16. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as addressed by Learned
counsel for the parties. Issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, based on
appreciation of evidence, led by the parties, in support of their
respective versions of the case, are reproduced herein below.
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 19.12.2017 at about 6.30 am at Britania Chowk Flyover,
towards Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, one Wagon R car bearing registration No.
DL-1LR-TB-3658, which was being driven rashly and negligently by
Banna, hit M. Krishnan and caused his death? OPP
17. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities was
upon the petitioners/claimants.To prove the same, the
petitioners/claimants have examined PW1 Smt. K. Vasanti Krishnan
and PW2 ASI Banwari Lal. PW1 was the wife of the deceased and
PW2 was the IO of the case. In her evidence, PW1 deposed that the
accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by R1. PW1 has also placed reliance upon the DAR
filed by the IO.
18. PW2 being IO of the case, has deposed that after receiving first call
from PCR, he reached at the spot and investigated the matter. He
further deposed that the eye witness Yuvraj Pokhral has handed over
to him, the keys of the offending vehicle and he recorded statement of
the said eye witness and other witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. In his
MACT No. 479/18 Page 12 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
evidence, PW2 has also placed reliance upon the DAR already
Ex.PW1/2.
19. No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the
cross examination of PW1 Smt. K. Vasanti and PW2 ASI Banwari
Lal, to discredit their testimonies, which was capable of demolishing
the case of the petitioners, to the effect that the case accident had
occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by R1 and the death of victim M. Krishnan had occasioned therefrom.
Although, both PW1 and PW2 were not the eye witness in the present
matter, however, both PW1 and PW2 has placed reliance on DAR, as
filed by the IO, in which R1 had been shown, as the driver of the
offending vehicle, who was responsible for causing the accident in
question.
20. As per chargesheet, Yuvraj Pokhral, was shown as the eye witness of
the case accident and though, it is unfortunate that he had not been
examined by the petitioners, before this Tribunal however, it is trite
law that in Motor Accident Claims Cases, the standard of proof is not
as strict, as the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal matters,
and non- examination of eye witness before the Tribunal, cannot be
treated as fatal, in a claim for compensation, in respect of road traffic
accident, if the factum of rashness and negligent stands proved, on the
basis of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioners. A Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal is a benevolent entity, created for the
MACT No. 479/18 Page 13 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
benefit of victims of road traffic accident and the evidence brought on
record before the Tribunal by the accident victims or their legal heirs
has to be evaluated on the touch stone of preponderance of
probabilities and not on the scale of beyond reasonable doubt.
21. In this context, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal
No. 166/2019, date of decision 14.02.2019 that non examination of
eye witness in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioners
particularly when there was sufficient evidence on record to establish
that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its driver. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had inter
alia held as follows:-
“It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence
of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s
role would be to calculate the quantum of just
compensation if the accident had taken place by reason
of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while
doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the
pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases
arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of
proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of
probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”
22. It was similarly held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Pushpa Rana and Ors.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 14 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
MAC App. No.360/2007 decided on 20.12.2007, that the certified
copy of criminal case record including charge sheet filed against the
driver of the offending vehicle, certified copy of FIR, recovery memo
and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle relied upon
by the petitioners were sufficient proofs to arrive at a conclusion
regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, because
the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act were not akin to a civil suit
and as such strict rules of evidence were not supposed to be followed
in such proceedings.
23. In another case decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as New
India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. MACT
App. No.550/2011 decided on 2nd July, 2012, it had been similarly
reiterated that negligence was not required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt in a MACT case and a certified copy of report u/s
173 Cr.P.C. supported by the mechanical inspection report of the
offending vehicle were sufficient to depict the manner in which the
accident in question had occurred.
24. In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, (Supra), as well as the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs Shri Mati Pushpa Rana and Ors. (Supra), New
India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. (Supra),
it can be safely concluded that the proceedings before the Motor
MACT No. 479/18 Page 15 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT) cannot be rejected merely on
account of non examination of eye witness by the petitioner and even
if the eye witness turns hostile, the MACT can still arrive at a finding
of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis
of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioners.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, despite the fact that
the petitioners failed to examine the eye witness Yuvraj Pokhral,
however, perusal of the statement of the said eye witness, which is part
of criminal case record, reveals that after the accident, when the IO
reached at the spot, he met with the eye witness and IO recorded his
statement. In his statement, the eye witness disclosed that on 19.12.2017,
at about 6.30 am, he was going by his vehicle, to Dhaula Kuan, via Ring
Road and when he reached prior to Britania Chowk Flyover, he had seen
that the driver of one Wagon R car, bearing registration no.
DL-1RTB-3658, was driving the said vehicle, in a rash and negligent
manner and at a high speed and after hitting one pedestrian, he fled away
from the spot. He further stated that he chased the offending vehicle,
stopped him near Punjabi Bagh and the driver disclosed his name as
Banna S/o Ram Kishan R/o H-4, 1577, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He further
stated that as he was in hurry therefore, he has gone from there and called
at 100 number, informing that the driver of the Wagon-R car, bearing
registration no. DL-1R-TB-3658, has caused this accident.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 16 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
26. The respondent no.1 has not filed any written statement, in denial to the
fact that the said eye witness has not seen the accident or he was a
planted witness. Further, there is nothing on record, which shows that
R1 has ever approached to any higher authority, against his
implication in the present case. Thus, in view of the statement of the
eye witness U/s 161 Cr.P.C, adverse inference can be drawn against
R1, that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
27. Further, perusal of DAR reveals that notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, was
given to R2/registered owner of the offending vehicle, who made a
endorsement in the said notice, that on 19.12.2017, at the time of
accident, his Wagon R car, bearing registration no. DL-1R-TB-3658
was driven by Banna S/o Ram Kishan R/o H. No. 228, Nihal Singh
Ka Makan, Razapur Village, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi and he has
produced R1, before the police on 20.12.2017. Thus, the same proves
that the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
28. The factum of death of the deceased, due to the injuries sustained in
the case accident, stands further corroborated from the postmortem
report of the deceased, as conducted by the Doctors, at BSA Hospital,
vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No.957/2017, 19.12.2017, wherein
the cause of death has been mentioned as combined effect of cerebral
damage and hemorrhagic shock and their complications, consequent
MACT No. 479/18 Page 17 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
upon multiple injuries (fractures), as a result of blunt trauma to the
body. It was further mentioned that all injuries were ante mortem in
nature, recent in duration and could be possible in the manner, as
mentioned in the police inquest papers, i.e. road traffic accident.
29. Thus, in view of the above said discussion, on the basis of testimony
of PW1 K. Vasanti Krishnan and PW2 ASI Banwari Lal, which was
duly corroborated by the criminal case record, including charge sheet,
as filed against R1 and statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the eye witness
Yuvraj Pokhral, it has been proved by the petitioners, on
preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused
by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent
manner, at the above said date, time and place and had hit the
deceased, thereby causing his death.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and
against the respondents.
Issue No. (2)
Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and
from whom? OPP
30. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1, regarding
negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are
entitled for compensation, on the account of fatal injuries, sustained
by the deceased M. Krishnan, in the above mentioned road traffic
MACT No. 479/18 Page 18 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence,
including the documents of the petitioners/claimants, for the purpose
of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which
the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
31. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry
into the claim to make an award determining the amount of
compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to
be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a
windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
32. To prove the dependency of the petitioners, on the deceased, Smt. K.
Vasanti Krishnan, wife of the deceased got herself examined as PW1.
In her evidence, PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 50 years and was maintaining good health
and physique. She further deposed that the deceased was working as
Lift Attendant, with Pro-Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd., at Udyog Vihar,
Gurugram, Haryana and was earning more than Rs. 18,000/- per
month. PW1 further deposed that the deceased used to do overtime
and was earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month, for the same.
She further deposed that the total income of the deceased was more
than Rs. 24,000/- per month. She further deposed that the deceased
was the only earning member in their family. PW1 deposed that she is
MACT No. 479/18 Page 19 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
a housewife and not doing any work. PW1 deposed that after the
death of the deceased, she along with her son and her mother-in law,
aged about 90 years, are hand to mouth and have no money to
survive. She further deposed that the deceased has also taken loan of
Rs. 15,00,000/- from the builder, for raising construction/development
of the house and after death of the deceased, all the liabilities fell on
her shoulder.
33. Perusal of the record reveals that during the course of trial, petitioner
no.1 Smt. K. Vasanti Krishnan got expired on 20.04.2021 and
petitioner no.2 Smt. Kulandayee also expired on 27.10.2019 and
thereafter, at present, the claim petition has been pursued by petitioner
no.3 K. Kannan and petitioner no.4 Jayshree Ravi Devender, who are
son and daughter of the deceased respectively.
34. Perusal of the DAR reveals that at the time of his death, there were
four legal heirs of the deceased i.e. wife of deceased/petitioner no.1,
namely, Smt. K. Vasanti Krishnan, mother of the deceased/petitioner
no.2 namely Smt. Kulandayee, son of the deceased/petitioner no.3
namely K. Kannan and married daughter of the deceased/petitioner
no.4 namely Jayshree Ravi Devender. Although, in her evidence,
PW1 Smt. K. Vasanti deposed that after death of the deceased, she,
her son, and her mother in law were hand to mouth and have no
money to survive. However, it is admitted case of the petitioners, that
the petitioner no.4 Smt. Jayshree Ravi Devender got married, prior to
MACT No. 479/18 Page 20 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
the death of the deceased. Though, she is one of the legal heir of the
deceased but, there is no deposition of PW1, that petitioner no.4 was
also dependent upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, she
cannot be considered as dependent legal heir of the deceased.
Petitioner No.3 K. Kannan is the son of the deceased. Perusal of
Aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.3 reveals that his date of
birth is 05.09.1981 thus, as on the date of accident, his age was 36
years, 03 months and 14 days. Though, PW1 deposed that she along
with her son and mother in law were hand to mouth and have no
money to survive and nothing has come on record, about the work
and occupation of the petitioner no. 3 K. Kannan but, perusal of
statement of petitioner no.3 K. Kannan, as annexed with the death
verification report, qua petitioner no. 1 and 2 reveals that he was
working as a driver. Therefore, the petitioner no.3 cannot be
considered as dependent legal heir of the deceased. Thus, only
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, can be considered as dependent
legal heir of the deceased, at the time of accident, hence only
petitioner no.1 and 2 are entitled to seek compensation under this
head.
35. Along with the DAR, the IO has placed on record copy of Annual
Increment Letter dated 27.04.2013, qua the deceased, wherein it was
mentioned that the deceased was working as Lift Attendant in Pro
Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd. and his total monthly gross salary was
Rs.11,620/- w.e.f. 01.04.2013. IO has also placed on record salary slip
MACT No. 479/18 Page 21 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
of deceased for the month of January 2015, as per which, the
deceased was getting gross salary of Rs. 11,620/- per month.
However, perusal of the said increment letter and salary slip, prima
facie shows that the deceased was working in the concerned company,
in the year 2015 but, there is no document on record, which will
prima facie shows that at the time of accident also, the deceased was
working in the same company.
36. Further, perusal of the said document prima facie shows that the IO
failed to verify the same, from the concerned company, as there is no
stamp or signature of any authorized representative of the concerned
company, on the said documents. The petitioners also failed to
summon any witness from the concerned company, to prove that the
deceased was working with the said company, at the time of accident.
Thus, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners failed to prove
income and occupation of the deceased, at the time of accident.
37. As per the Aadhar card of the deceased, he was resident of E-408, J.J.
Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi, at the time of accident and there is no
document on record, to prove education or technical know how of the
deceased therefore, income of the deceased, is ascertained on the
basis of minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person, in Delhi, as
on the date of occurrence of the case accident, i.e 19.12.2017. As per
the notification, the Minimum Wages in Delhi, for an unskilled person
was Rs. 13,584/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case
MACT No. 479/18 Page 22 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
accident in question i.e. on 19.12.2017. Accordingly, it would be
reasonable and just to consider the income of the deceased as
Rs.13,584/- per month.
38. PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was 50 years
old. As per Aadhar card of the deceased, his year of birth was
mentioned as 1964. For calculating the age of the deceased, his date
of birth is presumed to be 01.01.1964, as on the date of accident.
Since the date of birth of deceased is taken as 01.01.1964 and the date
of accident was 19.12.2017, therefore, the age of the deceased is
accepted as 53 years 11 months and 18 days, at the time of accident.
Hence, the multiplier of 11 would be applicable in view of
pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the
case titled as Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
39. Considering the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, future
prospects @ 10% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners, in view
of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the
case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.” SLP (civil) no. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017, as well as
in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing
MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.2017.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 23 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
40. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A)
that she herself, her son and mother in law aged about 90 years, are
hand to mouth, after the death of the deceased. By the cross-
examination of PW1, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R2
failed to elicit anything on record, which reflects that petitioner no.1
and 2 were gainfully employed and not dependent upon the deceased,
at the time of accident. However, as already discussed hereinabove,
that only petitioner no.1 and 2 were dependent legal heirs of the
deceased, at the time of accident and as such, they are entitled to
receive compensation, under this head. In such circumstances, the
deceased was likely to spare 1/3th of his income, for his personal and
living expenses and to contribute the remaining 2/3rd of his income
towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members.
Hence, there has to be deduction of 1/3rd, as held in the case of Sarla
Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of
dependency would come out to Rs. 13,14,931.2 (rounded off
Rs.13,14,932/-) (13,584/- + 10% (1358.4) = 14,942.4- 1/3 (4,980.8)
= 9,961.6 x 12 x 11). Hence, a sum of Rs.13,14,932/- is awarded
under this head in favour of the petitioner no 1 and 2 and since, both
petitioner no.1 and 2 has expired therefore, now being legal heirs of
petitioner no. 1 and 2, petitioner no.3 and 4 are entitled for the above
said amount.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 24 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
41. After the celebrated judgment of “National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled
New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors.,
Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are
not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in appeal titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, mentioned supra has been pleased
to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non
pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is
being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
42. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as
New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors.,
Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of
considered opinion that as on the date of accident, there were four
legal heirs of the deceased, which includes his widow, mother, son
and daughter and as such, they are entitled for payment of Rs.48,400/-
each, towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of
Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 4) is awarded to the petitioners, under
this head and since, both petitioner no.1 and 2 has expired therefore,
MACT No. 479/18 Page 25 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
now being legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 and 2, petitioner no.3 and 4
are entitled for the share of petitioner no.1 and 2.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
43. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view
of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” mentioned supra, a sum of
Rs. 18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is
awarded in favour of petitioners and since, both petitioner no.1 and 2
has expired therefore, now being legal heirs of petitioner no. 1 and 2,
petitioner no.3 and 4 are entitled for the share of petitioner no.1 and 2.
44. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation
computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 13,14,932/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 15,44,832/-
________________
(Rupees Fifteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand and Eight Hundred Thirty
Two only).
45. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded
amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex Court had in the case
MACT No. 479/18 Page 26 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of
Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per
annum. The present matter is pending trial since 16.07.2018 and the
rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has
fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present
proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case,
this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to
interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 16.07.2018 till
realization of the compensation amount.
46. 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.
LIABILITY
47. In the case in hand, as per the defence of R4, R4 is not liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners, as at the time of accident, R1 was not
holding valid driving license, to drive a commercial vehicle, as he
was holding driving license to drive motorcycle and LMV-(NT),
which is breach of terms and conditions of policy. To prove their
defence, R4 examined Sh. Ajit Kumar Lakra, Deputy Manager, who
led his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.R4W1/1 and he deposed on
the lines of written statement of R4.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 27 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
48. However, as per settled proposition of law, as laid down by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. 2017 (4) T.A.C.11 (S.C), which was further reiterated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in New India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Subhash Rastogi and Ors. MAC Appeal No. 438 of 2009 decided on
25.07.2017, even where the driver was holding a driving license,
which was valid for LMV, whereas vehicle involved is transport
vehicle having unladen weight under 7500 kg, the insurance
Company is not entitled to any recovery rights and insurance
company is duty bound to pay the compensation to the claimants.
49. In the present matter, the offending vehicle was a LMV, with
commercial number and was not even a light transport vehicle,
therefore, as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly
insured with the insurance company/R4, hence R4 is liable to pay the
entire compensation amount to the petitioners, as per law and no
recovery right can be granted to insurance company/R4.
50. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017
of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Oriental Insurance Company
Limited/R4 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.
15,44,832/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
MACT No. 479/18 Page 28 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to
be given by R4 to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or
deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules.
R4 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said
bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along
with 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
51. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was
recorded on 15.01.2024 & 10.09.2024 regarding savings bank account
of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I
have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the
petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and
in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994
(2) SC, 1631, 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:-
MACT No. 479/18 Page 29 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
52. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels
for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in
FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby
directed that on realization of the entire award amount, the
compensation to the Petitioners be distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relationship Share of Release of Amount kept in Period of
No petitioner with amount of award of FDR FDR
deceased award amount.
1 K. Kannan Son Rs.7,72,416/- Rs.3,72,416/- Rs.4,00,000/- 20
-Petitioner no. 3
2 Jayshree Ravi Daughter Rs.7,72,416/- Rs. 3,72,416/- Rs. 4,00,000/- 20
Devendar
-Petitioner no. 2
53. The amount as per the arrangement of aforesaid table be credited in
the saving bank accounts of petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.3 K.
Kannan having S.B. A/c No. 60447095261 and Petitioner No.4
Jayshree Ravi Devendar having S.B. A/c No. 60447094857, both
accounts with Bank of Maharashtra, Rani Bagh Branch, Delhi, IFSC:
MAHB0001777 i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as
mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and
remaining amount of petitioners be kept in the form of FDRs for the
aforesaid period as mentioned in the aforesaid table, with cumulative
interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature
withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 30 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
54. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in
terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in
case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 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).
(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 pre-mature 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
MACT No. 479/18 Page 31 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
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.
RELIEF
55. As discussed above, Oriental Insurance Company Limited/R4 is
directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 15,44,832/- with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is,
16.07.2018 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that
is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under
intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R4 to
the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R4 shall be liable to
pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30
days.
56. R4 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award
amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award
MACT No. 479/18 Page 32 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
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.
57. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no.4 for
compliance within the granted time.
58. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-
receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
59. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and
subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha
in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO
842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the
court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank’s
Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide
above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-
22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business
Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts,
Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that
regard.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 33 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
60. 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 FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.
vide order dated 12.12.2014.
61. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh
Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded
on 15.01.2024 and 10.09.2024 wherein they had stated that they were
entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would
submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
62. 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. Digitally signed
SHAMA by SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA 19:46:44
Date: 2025.01.25
+0530
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 24th January, 2025 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 479/18 Page 34 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
FORM – IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 19.12.2017
2. Name of deceased: M. Krishnan
3. Age of the deceased: About 53 years 11 months and 18 days at the time
of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private Job
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 13,584/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sh. K. Kannan 44 years Son
(ii) Sh. Jayshree Ravi Devendar 39 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.13,584/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10% = Rs. 1,358.4/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,961.6/-
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,19,539.2/-
12. Multiplier (E) 11
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs.13,14,931.2 (rounded off
MACT No. 479/18 Page 35 of 36
LRs of M. Krishnan Vs. Banna & Ors.
= F) to Rs. 13,14,932/-)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs. 1,93,600/- (48,400×4)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.15,44,832/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs.7,55,680.32
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.23,00,512.32
(L+M)
23. Award amount released Rs.7,44,832/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.15,55,680.32 (rounded off
to Rs. 15,55,681)
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause
of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 23.02.2025
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
SHAMA by SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.01.25
19:46:51 +0530(SHAMA GUPTA)
PO MACT/NORTH WEST
ROHINI, DELHI.
MACT No. 479/18 Page 36 of 36
[ad_1]
Source link