Delhi District Court
Sita Rani Lrs Of Deceased Sunil Pawar … vs Shyam Sunder (Nia) on 24 December, 2024
DLCT010034802020
Presented on : 13-03-2020
Registered on : 16-03-2020
Decided on : 13-12-2024
Duration : 04 Years 09
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No.326/20
1. SITA DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Sunil Panwar
2. RADHIKA PANWAR
D/o Late Sh. Sunil Panwar
3. KANIKA PANWAR
D/o Late Sh. Sunil Panwar
All R/o H.No. D-384, Kh. No. 17/13,.
D- Block, Street No. 9, Amrit Vihar,
I.P. Colony, Burari, Delhi-110084.
4. PRABHAKAR SINGH PANWAR
S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh
5. SMT. DEVESHWARI DEVI
W/o Sh. Prabhakar Singh Panwar
Both R/o Village DET, Post Delchaunri,
Patti Rawatsyun, Del Pauri Garwal,
Uttrakhand-246125. ......Petitioners.
VERSUS
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 1/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:17 +0530
1. SHYAM SUNDER
S/o Sh. Banarsi Lal
R/o Mohalla Joshiyan,
Sakit, Etah, UP-207121..(DRIVER).
2. SHAILENDER KR. GUPTA
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Gupta
R/o H.No. 146, Mohalla Rewari,
Kotwali City,
Etah, UP. (OWNER).
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its Manager:-
At First Floor,
Shriram Market,
93, Aruna Nagar, G.T. Road,
Etah-207001, UP. (INSURER).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Vinay Chaudhary)
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under:-
1. Date of the accident 09/01/20
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident Report N.A.
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed Accident N.A.
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 2/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:21 +0530
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A.
by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 13/12/24
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 19/11/24
directed to open savings bank account(s) near his
place of residence and produce PAN Card and
Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the NA
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o H.No.
Claimant(s). D-384, Kh.
No. 17/13,.
D- Block,
Street No.
9, Amrit
Vihar,
I.P. Colony,
Burari,
Delhi-1100
84.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 3/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:28:25 +0530
Also at:
R/o Village
DET, Post
Delchaunri,
Patti
Rawatsyun,
Del Pauri
Garwal,Uttr
akhand-246
125
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA
is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act
was filed on 16/03/2020 seeking compensation in respect of the
death of one Sh. Sunil Pawar S/o Sh. Prabhakar Singh
(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) due to a motor vehicular
accident dated 09/01/2020. As per PW-2 (eye witness) that in the
night at about 9.30 P.M. after finishing his job at Shri Nath Ji
Ispat Ltd, the deceased Sunil Pawar left from his job place for his
residence on his own Motor Cycle bearing registration no.
DL-2SR-0607, he was also following the deceased on his
separate motor cycle on account of some of his personal urgent
work. It is further stated that the deceased Sunil Kumar was
driving his motor cycle at a very normal speed while observing
all the traffic rules at the left corner of the road and at about
10.00 P.M, when the deceased and his friend reached near new
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 4/24 Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:28 +0530
bus stand, in front of CNG Pump, then all of a sudden a Truck
bearing registration no. UP-82Q-9925 (hereinafter referred to as
“offending vehicle”) which was being driven by the R-1 at a
very high speed in contravention of the traffic rules and hit the
motor cycle of the deceased Sunil with great force. It is further
stated that due to forceful impact, the deceased died at the spot
and he reported the matter to the police and also called the
Ambulance at spot. It is further stated that the deceased was
removed to hospital, where he was declared brought dead and
thereafter his post mortem was conducted at Distt. Mortuary,
Ghaziabad, UP vide post mortem examination report No.
36/2020. An FIR no. 16/20 PS Ghaziabad, UP U/s 279/427/304A
IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. R-1 is the
driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the owner of the offending
vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition
was issued to all the respondents.
2. No written statement was filed by the respondents
and accordingly, their right to file written statement was closed
vide order dated 11/10/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 11/10/2023 the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Sunil
Pawar suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 09.01.2020
at about 10.00 PM involving vehicle
bearing registration No. UP–82Q-9925
driven by the Respondent No.1 rashly
and negligently, owned by theMACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 5/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:28:32 +0530
Respondent No. 2 and insured with the
Respondent No.3?OPP
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE
4. In support of their contentions, the petitioners
examined Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Sita Rani, wife of the deceased,
as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, deposed that the
deceased who was her husband lost his life on 09/01/2020 due to
an accident involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed
that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence
of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was 42 years old
and was doing a private job and was earning a sum of Rs.
29,400/- per month from his vocation. She further deposed that
the petitioners, being the wife, children and parents of the
deceased, were completely dependent on the earnings of the
deceased. She relied upon following documents :-
“Copy of Aadhaar Cards of
petitioners are Ex. PW-1/1(OSR);
Copy of death certificate of my
deceased is Ex. PW-1/2(OSR);
Copy of school receipt is Ex.
PW-1/3.”
5.1 PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/
Insurance Company Only. In her cross-examination she deposed
that she is not an eye witness of the accident. She further
deposed that she got the information about the accident through
the complainant who is Mahesh Pawar over voice call. She
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 6/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:35 +0530
denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was not earning
Rs. 36,750/- as mentioned in Para No. 4 of her affidavit. She
further denied the suggestion that she was not dependent upon
her husband. She further denied the suggestion the accident had
occurred due to the negligence of her deceased husband.
5.2 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Aditya Pratap,
eye witness, as PW-2. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A.
He relied upon the copy of his Aadhar Card vide Ex. PW-2/1
(OSR). He deposed that on 09/01/2020 in the night at about 9.30
P.M., after finishing his job at Shri Nath Ji Ispat Ltd, the
deceased Sunil Pawar left from his job place for his residence on
his own Motor Cycle bearing registration no. DL-2SR-0607, he
was also following the deceased on his separate motor cycle on
account of some of his personal urgent work. It is further stated
that the deceased Sunil Kumar was driving his motor cycle at a
very normal speed while observing all the traffic rules at the left
corner of the road and at about 10.00 P.M, when the deceased
and his friend reached near new bus stand, in front of CNG
Pump, then all of a sudden a Truck bearing registration no.
UP-82Q-9925 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”)
which was being driven by the R-1 at a very high speed in
contravention of the traffic rules and hit the motor cycle of the
deceased Sunil with great force. It is further stated that due to
forceful impact, the deceased died at the spot and he reported the
matter to the police and also called the Ambulance at spot. It is
further stated that the deceased was removed to hospital, where
he was declared brought dead and thereafter his post mortem
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 7/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:40 +0530
was conducted at Distt. Mortuary, Ghaziabad, UP vide post
mortem examination report No. 36/2020. PW-2 was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company Only. In
her cross-examination she deposed that he is the eye witness of
the incident but no stated of police official has been taken and no
official has called in station for any inquiry and statement till
date. He denied the suggestion that he and the deceased friend
were travelling in the same motor vehicle. He further denied the
suggestion that the deceased died by falling from his motor
cycle. He further denied the suggestion that he is not a family
friend of the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that he
was not present at the spot of the accident.
5.3 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Avanish
Sengar, HR Manager, Srinath Ji, Ispat Ltd, UP as PW-3. He
relied upon his authority letter vide Ex. PW3/A. He proved the
verified salary slip of deceased Sunil vide Ex. PW3/1 and
increment letter of deceased vide Ex. PW3/2. PW3 was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company Only. In
her cross-examination she deposed that in the firm more than
300 persons are working. He further deposed that their company
used to pay salaries to their employees by way of cheques and
cash also. He denied the suggestion Sunil Kumar never worked
in their company nor their company was paying any salary to
him as shown in Ex PW3/1.
5.4 Petitioner’s evidence was then closed.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 8/24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:28:44 +0530
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their
defence.
FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
the parties..
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise
findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
” Whether the deceased Sh. Sunil Pawar
suffered fatal injuries in an accident that
took place on 09.01.2020 at about 10.00
PM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. UP–82Q-9925 driven
by the Respondent No.1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent
No. 2 and insured with the Respondent
No.3?OPP”
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are
required to be established by preponderance of probabilities
only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of
proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 9/24 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2024.12.24
11:28:47
+0530
others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners
have examined PW-2 Sh. Aditiya Pratap, eye witness, as PW-2.
He deposed vide his affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, 09/01/2020 in the
night at about 9.30 P.M., after finishing his job at Shri Nath Ji
Ispat Ltd, the deceased Sunil Pawar left from his job place for his
residence on his own Motor Cycle bearing registration no.
DL-2SR-0607, he was also following the deceased on his
separate motor cycle on account of some of his personal urgent
work. It is further stated that the deceased Sunil Kumar was
driving his motor cycle at a very normal speed while observing
all the traffic rules at the left corner of the road and at about
10.00 P.M, when the deceased and his friend reached near new
bus stand, in front of CNG Pump, then all of a sudden a Truck
bearing registration no. UP-82Q-9925 (hereinafter referred to as
“offending vehicle”) which was being driven by the R-1 at a
very high speed in contravention of the traffic rules and hit the
motor cycle of the deceased Sunil with great force. It is further
stated that due to forceful impact, the deceased died at the spot
and he reported the matter to the police and also called the
Ambulance at spot. It is further stated that the deceased was
removed to hospital, where he was declared brought dead and
thereafter his post mortem was conducted at Distt. Mortuary,
Ghaziabad, UP vide post mortem examination report No.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 10/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:28:50 +0530
36/2020. PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/
Insurance Company Only. In her cross-examination she deposed
that he is the eye witness of the incident but no stated of police
official has been taken and no official has called in station for
any inquiry and statement till date. He denied the suggestion that
he and the deceased friend were travelling in the same motor
vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased died
by falling from his motor cycle. He further denied the suggestion
that he is not a family friend of the deceased. He further denied
the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of the accident.
11. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279/427/304A IPC in the
above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the
above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this
issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, Mechanical
Inspection Report of the offending vehicle, and Postmortem
Report of deceased also corroborate the testimony of PW-2.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness
who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the
depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident
and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an
adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn
against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 11/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:28:54 +0530
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed
that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by
R-1.
14. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to
assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly,
R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle
(i.e. the offending vehicle) was hit the deceased at the relevant
time. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical
defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any
negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the
only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is
that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the
offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above
discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of
gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time.
15. In view of the contents of the FIR as well as the
postmortem report pertaining to the deceased placed on record
by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the
deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above
accident.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds
that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default
of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 12/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2024.12.24
11:28:58
+0530
favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2
“Whether the petitioners are entitled to
any compensation, if so, to what amount
and from whom?”
17. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was
responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and
default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time,
therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be
compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but
computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are
required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
18. The compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Smt.
Manju, wife of the deceased as PW-1. PW-1 has deposed that
at the relevant time, the deceased was 42 years old and was
doing a private job and was earning Rs. 29,400/- per month
from his vocation. In order to prove the income of the deceased,
the petitioners examined one Sh. Avanish Sengar, HR Manager,
Srinathji Ispat Ltd as PW-3. He proved the salary slip of the
deceased Ex. PW-3/1. As per which the salary of the deceased
is Rs.29,400/-. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is
considered as Rs.29,400/- for the purpose of quantification of
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 13Digitally
/24 signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:02 +0530
compensation amount.
20. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of Aadhar
Card of deceased. As per said document the date of birth of
deceased was 07/11/1977. The date of accident is
09/01/2020 .Apparently, the age of deceased was 42 years as
on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which
has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014,
decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of ’14’ is held applicable
for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners
on account of death of the deceased.
21. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of
accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his
wife, 02 children and parents. Accordingly, all are considered to
be dependent upon the deceased.
22. Irrespective of this, one fourth of the earnings of
deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further,
since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 42
years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in
the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also
held entitled to an addition of 25% of the above amount of his
earnings towards future prospects.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 14 /24
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:05 +0530
23. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the
present case comes to Rs.46,30,500/- (Rs.29,400/- X 125/100 X
3/4 X 12 X 14). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under
this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
24. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022
decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to
amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate
and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors
MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company
Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the
petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head
“loss of consortium”: –
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 44,000/-
Filial Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2)
Parental Consortium : Rs. 88,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- X 2)
25. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum
of Rs. 2,60,000/-(Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 2,20,000/- )
under this head.
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 15Digitally
/24 signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:08 +0530
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
26. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of
Rs.48,90,500/-(Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand Five
Hundred Only) (Rs.46,30,500/- + Rs.2,60,000/-) along with
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e.
16/03/2020. Since no interim compensation has been awarded,
therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
27. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs
and requirements.
27.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is
awarded a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs
Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank
of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the
form of 180 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in
equal amounts for a period of 1 to 180 months in succession, as
per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when
she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the
place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir
of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.4,49,334/-
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 16/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:11 +0530
(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and
Thirty Four Only) is also directed to be released into her above
said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the
Petitioner no. 1.
27.2 Rs.6,74,889/- be kept in FDRs in the name of
petitioners No. 3 till she attains majority with cumulative interest.
On attaining majority, the bank shall release the interest portion
to petitioner No. 3 by transferring the same to her savings bank
accounts as and when she furnishes the details of her bank
accounts which is near the place of her residence to the Bank
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal and the
principal amount of Rs. 6,74,889/- be kept in 67 FDRs of Rs.
10,000/- each for a period of 1 month to 67 months with
cumulative interest in the name of Petitioner No. 3.
27.3 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioners No. 2, 4 & 5
are awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rupees Five Lakhs
Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank
of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the
form of 25 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in
equal amounts for a period of 1 to 25 months in succession, as
per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts as and
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 17/24Digitally
by PANKAJ
signed
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:15 +0530
when they furnish the details of their bank accounts which is near
the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of
India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.1,74,889/-
each (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred
and Eighty Nine Only) is also directed to be released into their
above said accounts, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the
Petitioners no. 2, 4 & 5 respectively.
28. The Bank(s) hall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the
FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their
residence.No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge
be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this
Tribunal.
LIABILITY
29. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and
principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending
vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are
jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 18/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2024.12.24
11:29:18
+0530
compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle
was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect
of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above
award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by
way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal
maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder’s
name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No.
40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to
the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for
remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager
Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and
16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 8% per
annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing
which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
30. 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)]. 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
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 19/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:22 +0530
Rule 150A).
31. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy
of the award to the insurer 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. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts
for information.
32. 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.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report
and put up the same on 24.01.2025. PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:27 +0530
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
On this 24.12.2024 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
Delhi/24/12/2024
FORM – XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 09/01/2020
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Sunil Panwar
3. Age of the deceased : 42 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Job
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 20/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:30 +0530
5. Income of the deceased : As per salary slip of the
deceased at the relevant
time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Smt. Sita Devi 44 Years Wife of the
deceased
(2) Radhika Panwar 18 Years Daughter of
the deceased
(3) Kanika Panwar 15 Years Daughter of
the deceased
(4) Prabhakar Singh Panwar 68 Years Father of the
deceased
(5) Deveshwari Devi 67 Years Mother of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 21/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:35 +0530
7. Income of the Rs.29,400/- per month
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 25%
(B)
9. Less-Personal One fourth deduction has been
expenses of the done
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.27,562.50/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D]
11. Annual loss of Rs.3,30,750/-
dependency (Dx12)
12. Multiplier(E) ’14’
13. Total loss of Rs.46,30,500/-
dependency
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss Rs.2,20,000/-
of consortium(H)
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 22/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:38 +0530
16. Compensation for loss NIL
of love and affection
(I)
17. Compensation for loss Rs. 20,000/-
of estate(J)
18. Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
towards funeral
expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.48,90,500/-
COMPENSATION(F
+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 8%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to Rs.18,58,390/- (rounded off)
the date of award(M)
22.
Total amount Rs.67,48,890/-
including interest(L +
M)
23.
Award amount P-1 : Rs.4,49,334/-
released
P-2 : Rs.1,74,889/-
P-4 : Rs.1,74,889/-
MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 23/24
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
11:29:42 +0530
P-5 : Rs.1,74,889/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount
to the petitioner (s)
26.
Next date for 24/01/2025
compliance of the
award
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 24.12.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 24.01.2025
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:45 +0530(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/24/12/2024MACT No. 326/20 Sita Devi & Anrs. Vs. Shyam Sunder & Ors. Pages No. 24/24
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.12.24
11:29:48 +0530