Delhi District Court
Nazma Praveen Lrs Of Deceased Vehram … vs Ateek Ahmed (Cholamandalam) on 22 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010020192022
MACT No. : 81/2022
FIR No. : 137/2021
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338/304A IPC
Mr. Vehram Khan (since deceased) through his legal heirs:-
1. Smt. Nazma Parveen (mother of the deceased)
W/o Mohd. Jameel
2. Ms. Misba Khan (wife of the deceased)
W/o Late Mr. Vehram Khan
3. Master Mohd. Saad (son of the deceased)
S/o Late Mr. Vehram Khan
4. Master Mohd. Umar (son of the deceased)
S/o Late Mr. Vehram Khan
5. Mr. Mannan Khan (brother of the deceased)
S/o Mr. Jameel
6. Mr. Hannan Khan (brother of the deceased)
S/o Mr. Jameel
All R/o A-1, Dujana House,
Jama Masjid, Matia Mahal, Delhi-110006.
Also at : T-204, Galib Road, Basti Hazrat
Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
......Petitioners
Versus
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 1 of 36
1. Mr. Ateek Ahmad (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Mr. Akeel Ahmad
R/o 1364-A, Gali No. 18/8, Nehru Vihar
Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Najma Bano (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o Mr. Akeel Ahmad
R/o 1364-A, Gali No. 18/8, Nehru Vihar
Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
3. Chola Mandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
At Plot No. 39, Second Floor, Samyak Tower
Pusa road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 29.01.2022
Judgment reserved on : 16.04.2025
Date of Award : 22.04.2025
AWAR D
The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
29.01.2022 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim Petition. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 31.03.2021 at about
06.30 AM, at Ring Road, Yamuna Pushta, Near Nigam Bodh Ghat,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Mr. Vehram Khan expired in the said accident.
The said accident was allegedly caused by the vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1LAE-0682 which was driven by respondent No.1,
Ateek Ahmad; owned by respondent no.2, Ms. Najma Bano and insured
with respondent no. 3, Chola Mandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Based on the facts outlined in the DAR and the claim
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 2 of 36
petition, it emerges that on 31.03.2021, the information of an accident
was received by PCR call vide DD No.17PP and the PCR caller had
informed that “Nigam Bodh Ghat Shamshan Ghat Ke Pas Ring Road
par 1 Eicher Truck Wala 1 Scooty Ko Takkar Marte Hue Yahan Footpath
Par Soye Hue Logon Ke Uper Truck Chadha Kar Bhag Gaya Hai Jisme
2-3 Log Dead Ho Gaye Hai” . ASI Sandeep along with Ct. Rinku
immediately went to the spot of the accident where one Eicher Truck
No. DL-1LAE-0682 and one scooty No. DL-6SBC-4899 were found in
in accidental condition into a pit below the road and one dead person
whose head had been crushed was also found lying on the footpath. The
driver of the truck had fled away from the spot of accident after causing
the accident. They were informed that three injured persons had been
taken to Trauma Centre by PCR and CATS ambulance. The identity of
the dead person found at the spot could not be found. No eye witness
was found despite efforts. SI Sandeep called the crime team at the spot
who inspected the spot of the accident, took photographs of the spot of
the accident from different angles, prepared the report and handed over
the same to SI Sandeep. In the meantime ASI Nadir Khan also reached
at the spot of accident. The CATs staff declared the person lying on the
footpath dead and prepared the documents. The dead body was
preserved at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. After leaving Ct. Rinku at the spot,
SI Sandeep went to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines where the unknown
injured vide MLC No. 18086/21 was declared ‘brought dead’ by the
doctors. SI Sandeep collected the MLC No.18087/21 of another
unknown injured and MLC No. 18088/21 of injured Ramesh. He went
to emergency ward where both the injured persons were found under
treatment and were not fit to make their statement. Therefore, SI
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 3 of 36
Sandeep returned to the spot of accident where after some time, the
driver of the offending vehicle who disclosed his name as Ateek Ahmad.
He stated that due to fear of public gathered there, he had gone from the
place of accident. On the basis of the spot of accident, MLCs of the
deceased/injured, the offence under Section 279/304A of IPC was found
to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was registered at P.S.
Kashmere Gate.
3. During the course of the investigation, the IO prepared the
site plan. He opened the dickey of the accidental scooty found at the
spot and found one poly bag where RC of the scooty and one driving
license in the name of Vehram Khan, insurance policy and Pollution
Certificate were found. The IO seized the said documents and the scooty
as proofs of the accident. On the basis of said documents found in the
dickey of the scooty, the identity of the deceased found vide MLC No.
18086/21 in the Trauma Centre was established as Vehram Khan. The
IO made enquiry from the driver Ateek Ahmad and since sufficient
material was available against him, the IO arrested him, however, since
the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail
bonds. He had also produced his driving license, insurance policy,
permit and slip regarding impoundment of RC and the same were seized
by the IO. The driver was not found authorised to drive heavy vehicle
as per his driving license and therefore, Section 3/181 M.V. Act was
added in the matter.
4. During the course of investigation, the IO got the
postmortem of deceased Vehram Khan and thereafter, handed over the
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 4 of 36
dead body to his brother Zaidan for last rites. He got Hue and Cry notice
published regarding the unknown person diet in the accident. The IO
also got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and
accidental scooty conducted. He also recorded the statement of the eye
witness/injured Ramesh Kumar. The identity of the unknown deceased
could not be established and therefore, he was cremated at the Electric
Crematorium of Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi. The identity of another
deceased namely Rajesh, S/o unknown, R/o unknown also could not be
established despite issuance of notice publically and therefore, he also
cremated in Sarai Kale Khan Crematorium. The IO collected the
postmortem reports of the deceased Vehram Khan and Rajesh. On
completion of investigation, the chargesheet for the offences u/s
279/338/304A IPC was filed with respect to respondent no.1 Ateek
Ahmad before the concerned Ld. MM/JMFC and the DAR was filed
before this Tribunal on 29.01.2022.
Written statements:
5. Respondent nos. 1 & 3 did not file their written statements
and therefore, their right to file the written statement was closed vide
order dated 18.07.2022. Written statement on behalf of respondent no. 2
was filed on 13.01.2023. Later, respondent no. 3 insurance company
filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC to file the written
statement. The said application was allowed by this Tribunal vide order
dated 20.04.2024 and written statement on behalf of respondent no. 3
was taken on record. Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 & 2 stopped
appearing and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 5 of 36
03.07.2024.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
20.04.2024, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
i. Whether the deceased Sh. Jameel Khan suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 31.03.2021 at about 6.30 A.M. at Ring
Road, Yamuna Pusta Near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi
involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAE-0682 driven rashly
and negligently by respondent No.1 Ateek Ahmad, owned by respondent
no.2 Smt. Najma Bano and insured with respondent no.3 Chola
Mandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited?
OPP.
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP iii. Relief.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the name of the deceased is
Mr. Vehram Khan while in the issues, it has been inadvertently
mentioned as Mr. Jameel Khan who is actually the father of the
deceased Vehram Khan. The said error, being a typographical one,
stands corrected and the name of the deceased in the issue shall be read
as Sh. Vehram Khan.
EVIDENCE
8. The petitioners examined Smt. Nazma Parveen as PW-1
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 6 of 36
and Mr. Mohd. Shahid as PW-2. The respondents did not lead any
evidence.
9. The petitioners had filed the Form XIII. Financial statement
of the petitioners were recorded and final arguments were heard on
behalf of the petitioners and respondent no. 3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
10. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide
the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly
established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the
Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural
approach adopted by an accident claims’ tribunal mirrors that of a civil
court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009
ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a
preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict
rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as
required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter
than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The
Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors
(2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 7 of 36
adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through
the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record.
Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed
by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sh. Vehram Khan suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 31.03.2021 at about 6.30 A.M. at Ring
Road, Yamuna Pusta Near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi
involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAE-0682 driven rashly
and negligently by respondent No.1 Ateek Ahmad, owned by respondent
no.2 Smt. Najma Bano and insured with respondent no.3 Chola
Mandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited? OPP.
The factum of accident:
12. In this matter, to prove the occurrence of the accident as
well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of
offending vehicle by respondent no. 1, the mother of the deceased who
is the petitioner in this case examined herself as PW-1 deposed in her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A as under:-
“1.That the deponent is the petitioner no. 1 in the
above noted case and hence well versed with the
facts of the case and competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That on 31.02.2021 the deceased namely Vehram
Khan went to Seelampur private bus service to drop
the deponent at Seelampur Pvt. bus stand and when
returning from Seelampur Bus stand to Jama Masjid
at his house, when he reached Yamuna Pusta Nigam
Bodh Ghat one truck bearing no. DL1LAW-0682 hit
him from back side the scooty of the deceased stuck
in the truck and due to heavy impact the deceased
died on spot and other two persons who were also
died on spot due to said fatal accident. SomeMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 8 of 36
unknown person made call on 100 No. PCR and
police official came there and took the Vehram
Khan/deceased and other deceased / injured persons
in the hospital namely Aruna Asaf Ali Government
Hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi and doctors have
declared brought dead and sent the body of deceased
Vehram Khan for postmortem and also informed to
the deponent and her family who reached there and
identified the deceased and taken for last rituals.
This accident caused death of Vehram Khan was
caused due to rash and negligent driving of the
above said truck by its driver i.e. Ateek Ahmad who
was tried to ran away but the general public caught
hold at spot and handed over to the police the truck
and scooty have been seized by the police and
damaged scooty of the deceased Vehram Khan is
still lying in the police station. It may be noted that
at the time of accident, the respondent no. 3 was
insured with Chola Mandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy cover noted No.
3379/02706669/000/00 valid from 30.06.2020 to
29.06.2021.
3. That thereafter an FIR No.137/2021 dated
31.03.2021 U/s. 279/338/304A IPC and 3/181 of
MV Act registered at Police Station – Kashmeri
Gate, Delhi.
4. That at the time of accident the deceased was
running General Store Shop through helper and
during lockdown he started part time running Ola
Scooter and also working with Civil Defence from
last 2-3 months on daily wages and he was earning a
sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month.
5. That the deceased was driving scooty went to
Kasheri Gate and after dropping the deponent when
he was returning through Ring Road Pusta Yamuna
meet with an accident near Nigam Bodh Ghat,
Kashmeri Gate, Delhi as informed by the caller to
the deponent and her family members.
6. That the postmortem of deceased conducted by
Doctors of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Subzi Mandi
bearing postmortem report No.377/2021 dated
31.03.2021 at 2:00 PM.
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 9 of 36
7. That after investigation of the case, the case IO of
the police of PS Kashmeri Gate, filed the DAR
before this Hon’ble Court.
8. That the deponent and other legal heirs of the
deceased were totally depend upon the earning of the
deceased who had lost their entire income and they
are facing hardships and starvation due to sudden
demise of the deceased.
9. That the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased
and are entitled a total sum of Rs.60,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) for their survival.
10. That deponent is exhibits the following
documents to support the averment and contentions:-
i) Copies to Aadhar cards of the deponent and other
legal heirs/petitioners are Ex. PW1/A (colly).
ii) Copy of details of the legal heirs of the
deceased/Vehram Khan is Ex. PW-1/B.
iii) ID Card of the deceased/Vehram Khan is Ex.
PW1/C.
iv) Copy of mark sheet of Delhi Secondary School
Examination 2004 of the deceased/Vehram Khan is
Ex.PW1/D.
v) Copy of marks statement of senior secondary
school examination Oct. 2010 of deceased/Vehram
Khan is Ex. PW1/E.
vi) Copy of Basic Training Certificate issued by
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi in
favour of deceased/Vehram Khan is Ex. PW1/F.
vii) Copy of DAR alongwith documents are Ex.
PW1/H (colly).
11. That this is my true and correct statement.”
13. PW-1 Nazma Parveen in her additional affidavit deposed as
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 10 of 36
under:
“1. That the deponent is the petitioner no. 1 in the
above noted case and am fully conversant with the
facts of the case and competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. I say that I had filed evidence by way of affidavit
and exhibited the relevant documents and my cross
examination has also been recorded on 03.07.2024
by inadvertently I had not placed on record the copy
of bank account passbook of Punjab National Bank,
Branch Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi which
was operated by the deceased Vehram Khan and all
the transactions related to his income from Ola
Scooty and the were maintained in the aforesaid
bank account so the deponent moved an appropriate
applicant under order VII Rule 14(3) r/w. Section
151 CPC for filing additional document and the
same have been allowed by this Hon’ble Court and
copy of Bank account passbook of the deceased
showing the entry of income of the deceased is Ex.
PW1/I (colly) (total 19).
3. That this is my true and correct statement.”
14. PW-1 categorically deposed that on 31.02.2021, Vehram
Khan had gone to Seelampur private bus service to drop her at
Seelampur Pvt. bus stand and while returning from Seelampur Bus stand
to Jama Masjid at his house, when he reached Yamuna Pusta Nigam
Bodh Ghat, one truck bearing registration no. DL-1LAW-0682 hit the
scooty of the deceased and due to heavy impact, the deceased died on
the spot. She further deposed that two other persons also died on the
spot due to the said accident. She further testified that some unknown
person made a call at 100 No. PCR and police official came there and
took Vehram Khan and other deceased / injured persons to Aruna Asaf
Ali Government Hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Doctors declared Vehram
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 11 of 36
Khan brought dead and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem
and also informed the family who reached there and identified the
deceased and took his body for last rituals. She has deposed that this
accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the above said
truck by its driver i.e. Ateek Ahmad who even tried to run away but the
general public caught him at the spot and handed him over to the police.
15. PW-1 has testified that respondent no.1 was driving the
offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAE-0682 in a very high
speed and in a very rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased
forcefully. However, she has also admitted that she was not an eye
witness to the said accident. The respondent no. 1, who was the driver of
the vehicle, would have been the most crucial witness capable of
refuting the petitioner’s allegations of the occurrence of the accident and
rash and negligent driving. However, he did not step into the witness
box. Thus, adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP.
1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision
06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP.
690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019,
which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. No convincing
material has been brought on record by the respondents to show that no
accident took place or that respondent no.1 was not rash and negligent
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 12 of 36
while driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW-1 and
entire record, it stands proved that respondent no. 1 acted in a rash and
negligent manner while driving his vehicle due to which the deceased
suffered grievous injuries.
16. It is settled law that this Tribunal is holding an inquiry and
not a trial where the case has to be decided to the hilt. Here the burden is
even lesser than the balance of probabilities. Therefore, in view of filing
of DAR containing the charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338/304A
IPC and other relevant documents against the respondent no.1 and in
terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa
Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Ateek Ahmad
(driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. From the DAR, it also stands established
that respondent no.2, Najma Bano was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle and was insured with respondent no.3, Chola
Mandlam Insurance Company Limited vide policy no.
3379/02706669/000/00 valid from 30.06.2020 to 29.06.2021. The
factum of said insurance is also admitted by respondent no. 3 insurance
company.
The injury:
17. The MLC No. 180862 dated 31.03.2021 reveals that the
deceased was brought after a Road Traffic Accident in LNJP Hospital
where he was declared brought dead. Further, the postmortem report
bearing no. 377/21 dated 31.03.2021 reveals that the brief history is
mentioned as “A/H/O road traffic accident on 31/03/21 at 6:20 pm vide
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 13 of 36
DD No. 0016A via PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Dead body brought to
Subzi Mandi mortuary.” Further, the postmortem report of the deceased
which is part of DAR reveals that the cause of death of the deceased was
“Death due shock consequent to multiple injuries to body. All injuries
are ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration, prior to death and caused
by blunt force/ surface impact.” Thus, it stands established that deceased
Vehram Khan had expired on account of injuries sustained by him in the
accident in question.
In view of aforesaid discussion, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of petitioners (LRs of deceased) and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP.)
18. The petitioners are certainly entitled for compensation in
view of the decision of issue no. 1 above. They have claimed Rs.
35,27,400/- (as per form XIII) from the respondents. I have considered
the evidence on record and perused the entire record.
19. The general principles relating to computation of
compensation in such cases were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 which were
reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided
on 31.10.2017. The same are as under:
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 14 of 36
“…18. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing
compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal
to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with
reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized,
there will be uniformity and consistency in the
decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance
Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the
Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of
death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1
(Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction
should be made in regard to the amount which the
deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance, which is
considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2
(Ascertaining the multiplier)Having regard to the age of the deceased and period
of active career, the appropriate multiplier
should be selected. This does not mean
ascertaining the number of years he would have
lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard
to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the ageMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 15 of 36
has been identified by this Court. The multiplier
should be chosen from the said table with reference
to the age of the deceased.
Step 3
(Actual Calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the ‘loss of
dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of
estates. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under
the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to
be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or
hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical
treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred)
should also be added…..” .
Age determination of the deceased:
20. Applying the principles settled in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) to the facts of the present case, the first
aspect to be determined is the age of the deceased. According to the
petitioners, the deceased Vehram Khan was aged 34 years old at the time
of the accident. The Aadhar card bearing no. 2428 1579 1830 of the
deceased Vehram Khan shows that his date of birth was 01.01.1987
Accordingly, the deceased Vehram Khan was precisely aged 34 years,
02 months and 30 days old at the time of accident on 31.03.2021. Thus,
it is concluded that the age of the deceased was more than 34 years old
at the time of accident but less than 35 years. Hence, applying the
criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 16 of 36
multiplier applicable according to the age of deceased, would be sixteen
(16) as the deceased would fall in the bracket of 31-35 years.
Income of the deceased:
21. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Vehram
Khan was a Civil Defence Volunteer with Delhi Government. PW-1 has
placed on record the bank statement of the deceased to show that his
salary was Rs. 16,023/- per month. The petitioners also examined Mr.
Mohd. Shahid, Divisional Warden, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Directorate
General of Civil Defence & Home Guards CTI Complex, Raja Garden,
New Delhi-27 as PW-2 who deposed that “…I have brought the relevant
record pertaining to the employment of deceased Vehram Khan with
Directorate General of Civil Defence & Home Guards. I have brought
the copy of C-form which was issued at the time of appointment of the
deceased Vehram Khan as Civil Defence Volunteer. The same is marked
as Mark- PW-2/A. I have also brought the Training Certificate of the
deceased Vehram Khan, copy of which is already exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/F. The CDVs work with the department on daily wages basis
and the salary is directly credited into their account at the end of the
month. We do not have any document to show his salary but he was
given minimum wages pertaining to a skilled labour in Delhi.”
22. From the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, it stands proved
that the deceased Vehram Khan was working as a Civil Defence
Volunteer. While PW-1 has deposed that he was earning Rs. 16,023/- per
month, PW-2 has deposed that he was being minimum wages of a
skilled labour. The minimum wages for a skilled labour at the time ofMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 17 of 36
the accident were Rs.18,797/- while for an unskilled labour, they were
Rs.15,492/-. Also, the bank statement of the deceased shows a credit
from Delhi Government for an amount of Rs.16,023/- on 31.03.2021.
Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the deceased Vehram
Khan at the time of the accident i.e. on 31.03.2021 was Rs.16,023/- per
month.
Personal deductions:
23. As regards the aspect of deduction towards personal living
expenses of the deceased is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners
that the deceased Vehram Khan had left behind six legal heirs i.e. his
mother, Nazma Praveen (aged about 51 years); wife, Mazba Khan (aged
about 23 years); minor son Master Mohd. Saad (aged about 02 years);
Master Mohd. Umar (unborn on the date of accident); minor brother
Mannan Khan (aged about 17 years) and another minor brother, Hannan
Khan (aged about 17 years). It has been averred that all the legal heirs
were financially dependent upon the deceased. In view of the settled
proposition of law as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (Supra), the deductions in the
income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses would
be one fourth of his income. Further, by adopting the principles laid
down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the deceased Vehram Khan
shall be 40% as was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident on
31.03.2021.
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 18 of 36
Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
24. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and
further pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each
dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The
relevant portion is as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under
which compensation is to be awarded in a death
case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “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 family. With
respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife
which allows compensation to the surviving spouse
for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection,
and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.”
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.”
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 19 of 36
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the 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
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual
relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the compensation
awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death
of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their
families, in cases of genuine claims. 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.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose
their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the
Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on
this count. However, there was no clarity with
respect to the principles on which compensation
could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’
as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award
the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount
of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 20 of 36
25. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium
will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi
(supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to
provide uniformity with respect to the grant of
consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several
Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of
love and affection. The Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three
conventional heads under which compensation can
be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to
include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection
is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed
to award compensation for loss of consortium, which
is a legitimate conventional head. There is no
justification to award compensation towards loss of
love and affection as a separate head…”.
26. In the Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had held that the reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of Estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, with
enhancement at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. By applying
the said principles and law laid down in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur case (supra), a sum of Rs. 16,500/- is awarded under each head of
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 21 of 36
Loss of Estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 44,000/- each is
awarded to all the petitioners towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
27. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 16,023/- 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= 6,409.20/- 3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (16,023 + 6,409.20) 1/4=
personal and living expenses of Rs. 5,608.05/-
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (16,023 + 6,409.20) - 5,608.05
[(A+B) - C = D] = Rs. 16,824.15/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 16,824.15 x 12= 2,01,889.80/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency 2,01,889.80 x 16=
DxE=F Rs. 32,30,236.80/-
(rounded off to Rs. 32,30,237/-)
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 6=2,64,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 06 (with 10% enhancement in terms
petitioners of Pranay Sethi’s judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
(J)
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 22 of 36
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 16,500/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,27,237/-
28. Further, in view of the judgment of Benson George V.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022
decided on 25.02.2022, the claimants are held entitled to interest @ 6 %
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 29.01.2022 till
realization.
Apportionment:
29. It is evident from the record that the deceased Vehram Khan
had left behind six legal heirs i.e. his mother, Nazma Praveen; wife,
Mazba Khan; minor son Master Mohd. Saad; Master Mohd. Umar;
minor brother Mannan Khan and another minor brother, Hannan Khan.
For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of
the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation with Percentage of share Amount in (Rupees)
claimant deceased
1. Nazma Parveen Mother 32,30,237 x 10% = Rs. 3,23,023.70/-
Rs. 3,23,023.70 + Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 3,67,023.70/-
2. Mazba Khan Wife 32,30,237 x 50% = Rs. 16,15,118.50
Rs. 16,15,118.50 + Rs. 44,000/-
+Rs. 16,500/-
+Rs. 16,500/-
= Rs. 16,92,118.50/-
3. Mohd. Saad Son 32,30,237 x 15%= Rs. 4,84,535.55
4,84,535.55 +Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 5,28,535.55/-
4. Mohd. Umar Son 32,30,237 x 15%= Rs. 4,84,535.55
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 23 of 36
4,84,535.55 +Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 5,28,535.55/-
5. Mannan Khan Brother 32,30,237 x 5%= Rs. 1,61,511.85
1,61,511.85 +Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 2,05,511.85/-
6. Hannan Khan Brother 32,30,237 x 5%= Rs. 1,61,511.85
1,61,511.85 +Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 2,05,511.85/-
Disbursement
Nazma Praveen:
30. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.1,67,023.70/- (Rupees One Lac Sixty Seven Thousand & Twenty
Three & Seventy Paise only) along with entire interest amount be
released to the petitioner no. 1 Nazma Praveen (mother of the deceased)
and her balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) shall
be put in 08 (Eight) monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD
account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 08 months respectively, with
cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said
amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred
in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the
place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM
card.
Mazba Khan:
31. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.1,92,118.50/- (Rupees One Lac Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred
and Eighteen & Fifty Paise only) along with entire interest amount beMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 24 of 36
released to the petitioner no. 2 Mazba Khan (wife of the deceased) and
her balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) shall
be put in 60 (Sixty) monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD
account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 60 months respectively, with
cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said
amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred
in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the
place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM
card.
Mohd. Saad:
32. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.28,535.55/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty Five & Fifty Five Paise only) be kept in a fixed deposit and be
released along with entire interest amount to the petitioner no. 3 Mohd.
Saad (son of the deceased) upon his attaining majority. His balance
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be put in 50
(Fifty) monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal
amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of
01 month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of
the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 &
08.01.2021. Upon the attainment of majority by petitioner no. 3 Mohd.
Saad, the said FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the
other in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 25 of 36
near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and
ATM card.
Mohd. Umar:
33. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.28,535.55/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty Five & Fifty Five Paise only) be kept in a fixed deposit and be
released along with entire interest amount to the petitioner no. 4 Mohd.
Umar (son of the deceased) upon his attaining majority. His balance
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be put in 50
(Fifty) monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal
amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each for a period of
01 month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of
the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 &
08.01.2021. Upon the attainment of majority by petitioner no. 3 Mohd.
Umar, the said FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the
other in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated
near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and
ATM card.
Mannan Khan:
34. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.1,05,511.85/- (Rupees One Lac Five Thousand Five Hundred and
Eleven & Eighty Five Paise only) along with entire interest amount be
released to the petitioner no. 5 Mannan Khan (brother of the deceased)
and his balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) shall be
put in 05 (Five) monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD accountMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 26 of 36
of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each
for a period of 01 month to 05 months respectively, with cumulative
interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of
FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving
account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his
residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
Hannan Khan:
35. On realization of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.1,05,511.85/- (Rupees One Lac Five Thousand Five Hundred and
Eleven & Eighty Five Paise only) along with entire interest amount be
released to the petitioner no. 6 Hannan Khan (brother of the deceased)
and his balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) shall
be put in 05 (Five) monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD
account of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 05 months respectively, with
cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said
amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred
in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the
place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
36. It is clarified that the aforesaid amounts shall be released to
all the petitioners only on submitting the copy of passbook of savings
account in a bank near to their residence with endorsement of the bank
that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it hasMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 27 of 36
been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be
issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
37. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following
conditions as enumerated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to
be added in the saving account or fixed deposit
accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts
of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank
account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited
by the ECS in the saving bank account of the
claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
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
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect
of the account of claimants from any other branch of
the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no
cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 28 of 36
with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.
38. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 31.03.2021
2. Name of the deceased: Vehram Khan
3. Age of the deceased: 34 years
4. Occupation of deceased: Civil Defence Volunteer
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 16,023/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with
deceased
1. Nazma Praveen Mother
2. Mazba Khan Wife
3. Mohd. Saad Son
4. Mohd. Umar Son
5. Mannan Khan Brother
6. Hannan Khan Brother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 16,023/-
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 29 of 36
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= 6,409.20/-
3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (16,023 + 6,409.20) 1/4=
personal and living expenses of Rs. 5,608.05/-
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (16,023 + 6,409.20) – 5,608.05
[(A+B) – C = D] = Rs. 16,824.15/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 16,824.15 x 12= 2,01,889.80/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency 2,01,889.80 x 16=
DxE=F Rs. 32,30,236.80/-
(rounded off to Rs. 32,30,237/-)
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 6=2,64,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 06 (with 10% enhancement in terms
petitioners of Pranay Sethi’s judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 16,500/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 16,500/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,27,237/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 6%
15 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 6,83,696.10/-
of award w.e.f. 29.01.2022 (03
years 02 months and 23 days)
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 42,10,933.10/-
(rounded off to
Rs. 42,10,933/-)
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 30 of 36
17 Award amount released As per paragraph No. 30 – 35
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 30 – 35
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No. 30 – 35
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 22.05.2025
award
LIABILITY:
39. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1
Mr. Ateek Ahmad and owned by respondent no. 2, Najma Bano. The
said offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3, Chola
Mandlam Insurance Co. Ltd.
Therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the award amount and respondent no. 3 is liable to
indemnify respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
40. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 Chola Mandlam
Insurance Company Limited, is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.35,27,237/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Two
Hundred & Thirty Seven only) along with interest @ 6 % from the date
of filing of DAR i.e. 29.01.2022 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal
within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which
insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5 % per annum forMACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 31 of 36
the period of delay beyond 30 days.
41. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free
of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
22.05.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form
XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 32 of 36
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RUCHI by RUCHI
Announced in the open Court today AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
ASRANI
on this 22nd day of April, 2025. ASRANI Date: 2025.04.22
17:10:00 +0530
(Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 33 of 36
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 31.03.2021
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report Not available
(FAR) .
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of the Form-
V - Interim Accident Not available
Report (IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not available
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 29.01.2022
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Not provided by the insurance company
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Yes.
Officer of the Insurance
MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 34 of 36
Company admitted his
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance No. Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the No offer was filed by insurance
claimant(s) to the offer of company. Only reply was filed by the
the Insurance Company. insurance company.
14 Date of award 22.04.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) Yes. near their place of residence? 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and 02.02.2022 the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings Not produced. bank account(s) near the place of their residence MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 35 of 36 alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes. near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to Yes. ascertain his/their financial condition? Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date: 2025.04.22 17:10:09 +0530 (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 22.04.2025 MACT No. 81/2022 Nazma Parveen & Ors. Vs. Ateek Ahmad and ors. Page 36 of 36
[ad_1]
Source link