Delhi District Court
Sunita And Ors vs Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. … on 24 December, 2024
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 171/20
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-002453-2020
LRs of Kumar Banti:
1. Sunita W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
2. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Sher Singh
Both R/o Kalina, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Hari Kant Sharma
S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma
R/o H. No. 153, Bhododa,
Siwal Khas, District Meerut,
UP-250502
....... Driver/R1
2. Vijay Rana S/o Surendra Pal
R/o Barot Road, Baghpat,
Baghpat Society, Baghpat,
UP-250609.
........Owner/R2
3. Cholamandlam General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
8/G, 8th Floor, BIG Joss Building,
Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Ring Road, Delhi.
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.02.2020
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.12.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2024
MACT no. 171/20 Page 1 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN
FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH &
ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 02.12.2019
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 01.10.2021
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Petition was filed
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
MACT no. 171/20 Page 2 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
11. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 01.10.2021
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Vikas
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Shokeen, Ld.
Company. Counsel for the
insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the 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 N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to N/A
the offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 24.12.2024
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 23.01.2024
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
MACT no. 171/20 Page 3 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
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) 28.05.2024
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sunita
claimant(s) and the address of the bank savings bank A/c
with IFSC Code No.
3248011004617,
Naresh
Kumar-32480110
046166, both
with UCO Bank,
Sainik Vihar,
Nagla Tashi,
Sardhana Road,
Kankerkhera,
Meerut. The
IFSC No. of the
both the accounts
is
UCBA0003248
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
MACT no. 171/20 Page 4 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under
Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 29.02.2020,
seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-,
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in respect of
demise of Kumar Banti, in a road traffic accident. Perusal
of the record reveals that after the accident, FIR No.
315/2019, PS Rohta, Meerut, was registered on
02.12.2019, for the commission of offence of causing
death, not amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and
negligent driving of a bus, bearing registration number
UP-17T-4571 (herein after referred as offending vehicle),
on a public road, punishable under Section 279/304A/427
of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 1 was
filed before Ld. ACJM, Meerut, under section
279/304A/427 IPC.
2. As per the claim petition, at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was driven by Sh. Hari Kant Sharma,
(hereinafter referred as driver of the offending vehicle/R1),
the same was registered in the name of Vijay Rana,
(hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/R2)
and was insured with Cholamandlam General Insurance
Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as insurance
MACT no. 171/20 Page 5 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
company/R3), vide policy no. 3373/00402048/000/05,
valid for the period 19.12.2018 to 18.12.2019.
3. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim
petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as
LR’s of the deceased/petitioners/claimants), are that, on
02.12.2019, at about 2:00 pm, the deceased Kumar Banti
along with Rekha Rani, were going on motorcycle, bearing
registration no. UP-17P-3993 (herein after referred as
victim’s vehicle), which was driven by Kumar Banti, and
when they reached near Ajampur, Rohta Road, the victim’s
vehicle was hit from behind, by the offending vehicle. It
was further averred that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was driven by its driver/R1, in a rash and
negligent manner and as a result of the said impact of
hitting, Rekha Rani as well as Kumar Banti, fell down on
the road and sustained fatal injuries. It was further averred
that both the victims Kumar Banti and Rekha Rani, were
taken to Reeta Multi Specialty Hospital & Trauma Centre
on 02.12.2019, where they both succumbed to the injuries,
sustained by them in the case accident.
4. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the
deceased, was conducted at Postmortem House, Meerut,
vide PMR No. 1634/19, dated 03.12.2019, at 12.45 pm,
wherein cause of death was mentioned as shock and
hemorrhage, as a result of multiple bony and visceral
MACT no. 171/20 Page 6 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
antemortem injuries, caused by blunt force, possible in the
manner alleged.
5. No written statement (herein after referred as WS), was
filed on behalf of R1 and R2 and their defence was struck
off, vide order dated 28.02.2022 . Further, both R1 and R2
were proceeded Ex-parte, vide order dated 23.01.2024.
6. In its WS/reply, R3/insurance company, though admitted
that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was
insured with R3, in the name of R2, however, it has taken
the defence, that the accident in question has taken place,
due to negligence on the part of both the deceased, as they
were without helmets and further driver of victim’s vehicle
namely Kumar Banti, was driving his vehicle, without any
valid and effective driving license. It was further averred
that if during the course of trial, it stands proved that the
driver of the offending vehicle, was driving the said
vehicle, without holding valid and effective driving license
and that the owner of the offending vehicle, was plying his
vehicle, without valid permit and fitness, then R3 is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
28.02.2022:-
1. Whether on 02.12.2019, at about 2:00 p.m., at
village Azampur, in front of Rohta Road, Meerut,
MACT no. 171/20 Page 7 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & OrsUP, one bus bearing registration no. UP-17T-4571,
which was being driven rashly and negligently by
R3/Hari Kant Sharma and hit the motorcycle
bearing registration no. UP-17P-3993 being driven
by Kumar Banti and caused death of driver Kumar
Banti and pillion rider Smt. Rekha Rani? OPP. (as
amended vide order dated 23.12.2024).
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same. In support of their case,
the petitioners got examined 3 witnesses.
9. In support of their claim petition, the petitioner no. 1
namely Sunita, got herself examined as PW1. She has led
her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Her
deposition qua the accident in question, is reiteration of the
contents of her claim petition. PW1 further deposed that at
the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 30
years, was working as a Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police
and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 48,600/-. PW1
further deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased
was unmarried and since father of the deceased was 50%
permanently disabled therefore, both petitioner no. 1 and
petitioner no. 2 were totally dependent upon the income of
the deceased. PW1 further deposed that due to death of the
MACT no. 171/20 Page 8 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Orsdeceased, petitioners has suffered financial loss and had
the deceased been alive, his income would have increased
up to Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. In her evidence, PW1 has placed
reliance upon criminal case record as Ex. PW1/1 (colly.),
Aadhar card of petitioner no. 1 as Ex PW1/2, Aadhar Card
of her husband as Ex. PW1/3, Educational certificate of the
deceased as Ex. PW1/4 (colly.), Service ID card of the
deceased as Mark A, copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased
as Ex. PW1/5 and disability certificate of her husband as
Ex. PW1/6.
10. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/
insurance company, wherein she admitted that she is not an
eye witness of the case accident. She deposed that she is
not aware, whether the deceased was having driving
license, to drive the motorcycle or not. PW1 denied the
suggestion that the deceased was not having driving
license, to drive the motorcycle. PW1 further deposed that
she is a labourer and her another son, aged about 22 years
is unemployed. PW1 deposed that she has not filed any
proof of employment of his deceased son. She further
deposed that she is not aware, who got the FIR registered,
after the accident. She denied the suggestion that her son
was not employed at the time of accident. PW1 further
deposed that she, her son, as well as driver and owner of
the offending vehicle are residents of UP. PW1 further
deposed that the accident has taken place in UP but, she
voluntarily deposed that the case has been filed, on the
MACT no. 171/20 Page 9 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Orsbasis of address of Insurance Company. She further
deposed that she earns Rs. 150/- daily, from her work. She
denied the suggestion that her husband was not dependent
upon the deceased or that her husband was earning for last
many years. She further deposed that her husband is
getting disability pension/benefit, from the Government
but, she voluntarily deposed that he is getting Rs. 300 per
month. PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband is
getting more than Rs. 5,000/-, as disability benefit from the
Government and she has deliberately told less amount, to
get the compensation. She deposed that she is not aware,
where her deceased son was going, at the time of accident.
She denied the suggestion that her other children are
looking after her and her husband, in case of any urgency.
11. The petitioners further examined Sh. Rahul, the eye
witness of the case accident as PW2, who led his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. In proof of his identity, he
has placed on record, his Aadhar card Ex. PW2/1. He
deposed that on the relevant date, time and place, the
offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle of the victims
from behind, as a result of which, both the victims, namely
Kumar Banti and Rekha Rani, fell down on the road and
sustained serious and dangerous injuries He further
deposed that the offending vehicle was driven at a very
fast speed, as well as in a rash and negligent manner, by its
driver. He further deposed that after the accident, both the
injured were taken to the hospital, situated near bypass
MACT no. 171/20 Page 10 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
Meerut, where both the victims were declared brought
dead, due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
12. PW2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that at the
time of accident, he was standing near Azampur and was
waiting for a public vehicle, to go to his house. He deposed
that he came to depose before the court, on the request of
Sushil Kumar and that Sushil Kumar is known to him,
prior to the accident. He deposed that he has not got
registered the FIR and the same was registered by Mr.
Sushil. He deposed that Banti was his friend and they both
belong to the same village. He deposed that after the
accident, he along with public persons had taken the
injured to the hospital. He deposed that he has not made
any call to PCR, after the accident. PW1 further deposed
that police officials met him for the first time, in the
Hospital and further, police officials had recorded his
statement, on the same day, in the hospital. He deposed
that he does not know, what other formalities were done by
the police officials. He further deposed that the bus was
coming from Baraut and was going towards Meerut and
the motor cycle was going from Meerut to Baraut. He
further deposed that there was a head on collision, between
the bus and the motor cycle but, he voluntarily deposed
that the bus was coming from wrong side and hit the
motorcycle. He denied the suggestion, that the motorcycle
was coming from wrong side and the accident has taken
MACT no. 171/20 Page 11 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
place, due to negligent driving of the motorcycle, by its
driver. He deposed that the motorcycle was being driven at
a slow speed whereas, the bus was driven at a high speed.
He deposed that there was no divider on the road, on
which, the alleged accident has taken place and police has
not taken him to the place of accident again, after
recording his statement. He further deposed that helmet
was worn by Kumar Banti only and the pillion ridder was
not wearing any helmet. He denied the suggestion that
driver Kumar Banti was not wearing helmet. He denied the
suggestion that he is not an eye witness of the accident. He
denied the suggestion that no accident has taken place, by
vehicle no. UP-17T-4371. He further denied the suggestion
that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated, in
collusion with the driver and the owner.
13. PW3/HC Suresh Chand Mishra, from the office of
SSP/Police Commissioner, Kanpur, UP, was a summoned
witness, so as prove the salary of the deceased Kumar
Banti. He deposed that he has been authorized by Joint
Commissioner of Police Crime/Head Quarter, Kanpur, vide
authority letter Ex. PW3/3, to depose before the Court and
he has brought the salary record and increment record of
deceased Kumar Banti, and he exhibited the same as Ex.
PW3/1 (colly 11 pages) and Ex. PW3/2 (colly. 3 pages).
He deposed that there are chances of promotion of the
deceased Banti in future, as per service policy.
MACT no. 171/20 Page 12 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
14. PW3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that he is
pairvi officer and looking after the court cases of UP
Police. He denied the suggestion that the office record
submitted by him, is not prepared in his presence but, he
voluntarily stated that office record is verified by Joint
Commissioner of Police. He denied the suggestion that
there are no chances of promotion of the deceased. He
denied the suggestion that the deceased was not related to
their department.
15. The respondents failed to lead any evidence in their
defence, hence, respondent’s evidence was closed, vide
order dated 23.01.2024.
16. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Sh. U.C. Rai, Learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sh. Vikas Shokeen, Learned counsel for R3. None has
appeared on behalf of R1 and R2, to address final
arguments, and they were also proceeded Ex-parte, vide
order dated 23.01.2024.
17. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
MACT no. 171/20 Page 13 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 02.12.2019, at about 2:00 p.m., at village
Azampur, in front of Rohta Road, Meerut, UP, one bus
bearing registration no. UP-17T-4571, which was being
driven rashly and negligently by R3/Hari Kant Sharma and
hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-17P-3993
being driven by Kumar Banti and caused death of driver
Kumar Banti and pillion rider Smt. Rekha Rani? OPP.( as
amended vide order dated 23.12.2024)
18. The onus of proving this issue on preponderance of
probabilities, was upon the petitioners/claimants. For
deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Rahul
is relevant, being an eyewitness. PW2 Sh. Rahul has
proved his identity, by placing reliance on his Aadhar Card
Ex. PW2/1. He deposed that on the relevant date, time and
place, the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle of the
victims from behind, on which, the deceased Rekha Rani
was sitting as a pillion rider and as a result of the same,
both the victims namely Kumar Banti and Rekha Rani, fell
down on the road and sustained serious and dangerous
injuries. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was
driven at a very fast speed, as well as in a rash and
negligent manner, by its driver. He further deposed that
after the accident, both the injured were taken to the
hospital, situated near bypass Meerut, where both the
victims were declared brought dead, due to the injuries
sustained in the accident.
MACT no. 171/20 Page 14 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
19. R1 and R2 failed to contest the present claim petition, by
filing any written statement, in their defence, consequently
they both deemed to have admitted the entire contents of
the claim petition. Further, they both failed to cross
examine PW2, in order to highlight the weaknesses or to
bring out any falsity, from the deposition of PW2, so as to
negate the factum of accident, due to rashness and
negligence, on the part of R1, in driving the offending
vehicle.
20. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
R3/insurance company, where suggestions were given to
PW2, to the effect that PW2 was not an eye witness of the
case accident, that no accident had taken place, with the
offending vehicle, and that the offending vehicle has been
falsely implicated, in collusion with the driver and owner
of the offending vehicle, but, PW3 denied the said
suggestions. Though, during the course of his cross
examination by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW2 admitted that
there was head on collision between the victim’s vehicle
and the offending vehicle and that the deceased Kumar
Banti was not wearing helmet but, the said admission
cannot be said to be fatal, to the case of the petitioners, as
it has also came in evidence of PW2, that the offending
vehicle was driven by R1, on the wrong side of the road, at
a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. In order
to rebut the said deposition of PW2, R1 and R2 failed to
lead any evidence, which will prove absence of
MACT no. 171/20 Page 15 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
negligence, on the part of driver of the offending vehicle,
resulting in the case accident.
21. Thus, from the cross examination of PW2, even the
insurance company/R3 failed to elicit any admission, so as
to negate the factum of death of the deceased Rekha Rani,
and Kumar Banti, in a road traffic accident, due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Mere
putting suggestions, do not prove the averments made by
any party in the pleadings. Therefore, by the testimony of
PW2, the petitioners have been able to prove that the
accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by R1. The testimony of PW2
stands further corroborated by the criminal case record,
which includes the charge sheet, as filed by the IO, in
which R1 was charge sheeted for the commission of
offence U/s 279/427/304 A.
22. Further, there is nothing on record, which proves that the
driver of the offending vehicle/R1 has ever approached to
any higher authority, with respect to his false implication
in the present case. The fact that the deceased Kumar Banti
suffered fatal injuries in the case accident, is also duly
corroborated by the post mortem report of the deceased, as
per which, the cause of death of the deceased was
mentioned as shock and hemorrhage, as a result of
multiple bony and visceral antemortem injuries, caused by
MACT no. 171/20 Page 16 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
blunt force, possible in the manner alleged.
23. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record
including charge sheet and testimony of PW2 Sh. Rahul, it
has been duly proved by the petitioners, on preponderance
of probabilities, that the case accident had been caused by
R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, bearing no.
UP-17T-4571, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above
said date, time and place and had hit the victim’s
motorcycle, bearing no. UP-17P-3993, due to which, the
victim Kumar Banti had sustained fatal injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and
against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
24. 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 to compensation,
on the account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased
Kumar Banti, in the above mentioned road traffic 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
MACT no. 171/20 Page 17 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
compensation, to which the petitioners/claimants are
entitled.
25. 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
26. To prove the dependency of the petitioners, on the
deceased Kumar Banti, Smt. Sunita, mother of the
deceased got herself examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that
at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 30
years, was working as a Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police
and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 48,600/-. PW1
further deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased
was unmarried and since father of the deceased was 50%
permanently disabled therefore, both petitioner no. 1 and
petitioner no. 2 were totally dependent upon the income of
the deceased. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance
upon Service ID card of the deceased as Mark A and copy
of the disability certificate of her husband as Ex. PW1/6.
27. The petitioners had further examined Suresh Chand
Mishra, from UP Police as PW3, who has brought the
MACT no. 171/20 Page 18 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
salary and increment record of the deceased Kumar Banti,
and he exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/1 (colly 11 pages)
and Ex. PW3/2 (colly. 3 pages). Perusal of the last pay slip
of the deceased Ex. PW3/1, prima facie shows gross salary
of the deceased as Rs. 32,414/- and after deduction, his net
salary was shown as Rs. 29,510/-.
28. During the course of her examination in chief,
PW1/petitioner no.1 deposed that her son was working in
U.P. Police and she has placed reliance on ID Card of the
deceased as Mark A, which also proves that the deceased
was working as constable in U.P. police, at the time of
accident. As per evidence of PW3, the last drawn salary of
the deceased was Rs. 32,414/-. Though, there were certain
deductions, from the gross pay of the deceased but, the
said deductions were qua NPS, Insurance, Savings and
Society Deductions, which are in the nature of savings
therefore, while determining the income of the deceased,
the said deductions cannot be taken into consideration.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased, at the
time of his death, is accepted as Rs. 32,414/- per month.
29. PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, his son was 30
years old. Perusal of copy of Identity Card of the deceased
Mark A, as issued by UP Police and Aadhar Card of the
deceased Kumar Banti Ex. PW1/5, as annexed with the
petition, proves the date of birth of deceased as
MACT no. 171/20 Page 19 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
25.10.1990 and since the date of accident was 02.12.2019,
therefore, the age of the deceased is accepted as 29 years,
01 month and 08 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the
multiplier of 17 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.
30. Since, the deceased was working as a Constable, with U.P
Police therefore, being in a permanent job and after taking
into consideration the age of the deceased, at the time of
accident, future prospects @ 50% 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.
31. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A, that PW1 and her husband are the only LRs of the
deceased. Therefore, both the legal heirs of the deceased,
at the time of accident, which includes PW1 and her
husband, are entitled to receive compensation, under this
head, as they were dependent upon the deceased and since,
MACT no. 171/20 Page 20 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
the deceased was unmarried, at the time of accident
therefore, the deceased was likely to spare 1/2 of his
income, for his personal and living expenses and to
contribute the remaining 1/2 of his income, towards
household expenses/maintenance of his family members,
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. 49,59,342/- ( 32,414 + 50% (16,207) =
48,621 – 1/2 (24,310.5) = 24,310.5 x 12 x 17). Hence, a
sum of Rs. 49,59,342/-, is awarded under this head in
favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
32. 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.
MACT no. 171/20 Page 21 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
33. 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
mother and father of deceased are entitled for payment of
Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
Consequently, a sum of Rs. 96,800/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 2) is
awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
34. 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.
Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to
compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 49,59,342/- /-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 50,92,442/-
________________
(Rupees Fifty Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred
Forty Two only).
MACT no. 171/20 Page 22 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
35. 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 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 29.02.2020 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 and keeping in view the judgment titled as United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors MAC
APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court on
21.04.2023, this court is of the opinion that the
claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing
bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
petition, that is, with effect from 29.02.2020 till realization
of the compensation amount.
36. 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
37. In the case in hand, Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Ltd/R3, has though raised the defence, that the
accident in question has taken place, due to negligence on
MACT no. 171/20 Page 23 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
the part of both the deceased, as they were without helmets
and further driver of victim’s vehicle namely Kumar Banti,
was driving his vehicle, without any valid and effective
driving license. However, R3 failed to prove negligence on
the part of deceased persons, resulting in case accident, as
already discussed above, in Issue no.1.
38. R3 has further taken the defence that if during the course
of trial, it stands proved that the driver of the offending
vehicle, was driving the said vehicle, without holding valid
and effective driving license and that the owner of the
offending vehicle, was plying his vehicle, without valid
permit and fitness, then R3 is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. However, along with
criminal case record, petitioners has placed on record
driving license of R1, which was issued on 27.09.2019 and
which was valid for the period 27.09.2019 to 27.05.2021
(NT) and 26.09.2024 (TR). Further, fitness certificate of
offending vehicle is also on record. R3 failed to prove that
the said license and fitness certificate is forged and
fabricated. R3 further failed to prove that there was no
permit qua the offending vehicle. Therefore, it can be
safely concluded that R3 failed to prove his defence and
since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the
insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire
compensation amount, to the petitioner as per law.
39. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
MACT no. 171/20 Page 24 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
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., Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd/R3
is directed to deposit the awarded amount of
Rs.50,92,442/- 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 filing of the petition
till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given
by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or
deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir
as per rules. R3 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
40. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29
MCTAP was recorded on 28.05.2024 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 the submissions that petitioner
no. 2 Naresh Kumar has suffered 50% permanent disability
MACT no. 171/20 Page 25 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
and to prove the same, petitioners filed disability
certificate Ex. PW1/6 on record. 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:-
41. 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, the statement made by
the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of
the award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be
distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relations Share of Release of Amount kept Period of
No. petitioner hip with amount of award of in FDR FDR
deceased award amount.
1 Sunita, Mother Rs. Rs. 20,00,000/- 100
petitioner no. 1 25,46,221/- 5,46,221/-
2 Naresh Kumar, Father Rs. Rs. 20,00,000/- 100
petitioner no. 2. 25,46,221/- 5,46,221/-
42. The amount alongwith cumulative interest without the
facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without
the prior permission of the Tribunal, in terms of above
mentioned schedule be credited in the saving bank
MACT no. 171/20 Page 26 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
accounts of petitioners i.e. Sunita savings bank A/c No.
3248011004617, petitioner Naresh Kumar-
32480110046166, both with UCO Bank, Sainik Vihar,
Nagla Tashi, Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut. The
IFSC No. of the both the accounts is UCBA0003248 , the
branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in
statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP).
43. 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.
MACT no. 171/20 Page 27 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
(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 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
44. As discussed above, Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Ltd. /R3 is directed to deposit the award amount
of Rs. 50,92,442/with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of DAR/petition that is, 29.02.2020 till
realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal that is,
MACT no. 171/20 Page 28 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from
today under intimation of deposition of the awarded
amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his
advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest
@ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
45. R3 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 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.
46. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
47. 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)
MACT no. 171/20 Page 29 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
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.
48. 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.
49. 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 28.05.2024
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.
50. 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. SHAMA by
Digitally signed
SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA 16:18:18
Date: 2024.12.24
+0530
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 24th December 2024 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT no. 171/20 Page 30 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
FORM – IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 02.12.2019
2. Name of deceased: Kumar Banti
3. Age of the deceased: About 29 years 01 months and 08 days
at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Working in UP Police
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 32,414/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of
deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt.Sunita 55 years mother
(ii) Naresh Kumar 59 years father
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 32,414/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 50% = Rs. 16,207
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/2
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 48,621 - 24,310.5=
{ (A+B) - C =D}
24,310.5/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 24,310.5 x 12 =
2,91,726/-
12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = 24,310.5/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.
F)
MACT no. 171/20 Page 31 of32
Sunita & Anr. vs. Hari Kant Sharma & Ors
49,59,342/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 96,800/- (48,400×2)
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 50,92,442/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 18,40,705.59
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 69,33,147.59 (rounded
(L+M) off to Rs. 69,33,148/-)
23. Award amount released Rs. 10,92,442/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 58,40,706/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause
clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 23.01.2025
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by SHAMA
SHAMA GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.24
16:18:25 +0530Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 24th December 2024 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, DelhiMACT no. 171/20 Page 32 of32