Delhi District Court
Aarti Gautam And Ors vs Pankaj And Ors on 21 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of:
Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors.
MACT no. 407/2022
1. Aarti Gautam
W/o late Sh. Narender Kumar Gautam (deceased)
2. Aradhya Gautam)
D/o late Sh. Narender Kumar Gautam (deceased)
3. Naman Gautam
S/o late Sh. Narender Kumar Gautam (deceased)
4. Beby (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Devki Nandan
5. Devki Nandan (father of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal Gautam
All R/o C-29, Street no.4, Nam Dev Gali,
North Chhajjupur, Indira Niketan, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Petitioner no.1 to 3 also residing at: L-331B, Vijay Nagar,
Sector-9, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001. ................Petitioners
Versus
1. Pankaj (Driver)
S/o Sh. Chandrabhan
R/o 155, Village Bihang, Murad Nagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.-201206.
2. Ram Singh Yadav (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Yadav
R/o 440, Turab Nagar, PS Kotwali,
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201001.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 1/ 26
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Through Regional Manager,
Office at 1st Floor, Core-1, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. ..............Respondents
Date of institution : 01.09.2022
Final arguments heard : 21.08.2024
Date of Award : 21.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the claim petition under section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed on behalf of the petitioners/ legal
representatives of the deceased Narender Kumar Gautam, who
sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The important facts of the case as per claim petition are that on
01.07.2022 at 11:30 p.m., the deceased Narender Kumar Gautam,
sustained fatal injuries on account of a motor vehicular accident
occurred on the road, near Hemkund Petrol Pump, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, U.P. At the relevant time, the deceased after finishing his
duty at CBD Mall, Karkardooma, was going towards his home at
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, on his motorcycle bearing no. DL13-SS-
7776 and when he reached at the aforesaid place, an Eicher Canter
vehicle bearing registration no. UP14-JT-7988 (in short ‘offending
vehicle’), being driven by respondent no.1 at a fast speed, in rash and
negligent manner, came from behind and hit his motorcycle with a
great force. As a result, he sustained serious injuries and died on the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 2/ 26
spot. The deceased was taken to Mortuary, Ghaziabad, where his
postmortem was conducted. In connection with the accident, FIR
no.998/2022, under sections 279/304-A IPC was registered at PS
Sahibabad against the respondent no.1. After completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no.1.
Mentioning the aforesaid facts, the present claim petition has been
filed on behalf of the petitioners claiming a compensation of
Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
3. Notice of claim petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent
no.3/ insurance company filed its reply/ written-statement, whereas,
no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 nor they
filed their written-statement and therefore, opportunity of respondent
no.1 and 2 to file written-statement was closed vide order dated
22.03.2023.
4. The insurance company/ respondent no.3 took general defences in
their written-statement and contended that liability of the insurance
company is subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
5. Upon completion of the pleadings, learned predecessor of this
Tribunal framed the issues on 22.03.2023, as under: –
i) Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle
no. UP14-JT-7988 on 01.07.2022 at about 11:35 p.m., near
Hemkund Petrol Pump, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P., within
the jurisdiction of PS Sahibabad in rash and negligent______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 3/ 26
manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Narender
Kumar Gautam? OPP
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
iii) Relief.
6. Vide order dated 22.03.2023, Court Commissioner was appointed
(refer: Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 4 SCC 381) to
record the evidence this case. Court Commissioner submitted the
report containing the depositions recorded in this case, as under:
(a) PW1 Smt. Aarti Gautam, wife of deceased appeared in the
witness box and filed her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A regarding the manner of accident, age, occupation and
income of deceased and about the losses suffered on account of
his death. She relied upon the following documents: –
i) Certified copies of the criminal case record as Ex.PW1/1
(colly).
ii) Copy of Aadhaar Card, Driving License & PAN Card of the
deceased as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (OSR).
iii) Copy of Aadhaar Card & PAN Card of petitioner no.1 as
Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (OSR).
iv) Copy of Aadhaar Card & Birth Certificates of petitioner
no.2 and 3 as Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (OSR).
v) Copy of death-certificate and photographs of deceased as
Ex.PW1/6 (colly) (OSR).
vi) Copies of marks-statements of deceased with respect to
BBA Course pursued by him as Ex.PW1/7 (colly) (OSR).
vii) Copies of marks-statements of deceased with respect to BA
Course pursued by him as Ex.PW1/8 (colly) (OSR).
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 4/ 26
viii) Copy of Aadhaar Cards of petitioner no.4 and 5 as Mark-A
and Mark-B.
ix) Copy of salary slip and Identity Card of deceased, issued by
his employer as Mark-C & Mark-D.
(b) PW2 Rajveer Singh S/o Sh. Ved Ram Sharma, R/o GF-4,8/54,
Sector-3, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad was examined
as eye-witness of the accident. He deposed by way of his
affidavit Ex.PW2/A and produced the following documents:
i) Copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR).
ii) Copy of his PAN Card as Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).
iii) Copy of registration certificate of his vehicle as Ex.PW2/3
(OSR).
iv) Copy of his driving license as Ex.PW2/4 (OSR).
v) Copy of case diary showing his statement recorded in
criminal as Mark-A.
(c) PW3 Dharamvir Singh Payal, Enforcement Officer, EPFO,
Regional Officer, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 28, Community
Center, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi, produced his authority
letter Ex.PW3/1 and placed on record pension fund contribution
record of employee Narender Kumar Gautam (deceased) as
deposited by the employer as Ex.PW3/2 (colly).
(d) PW4 Ms. Richa Royal, Human Resources Business Partner
(HRBP) of the employer of deceased i.e. Reliance Retail
Limited, 3rd Floor, Reliance Mall, Opposite Sector-13, Dwarka,
New Delhi, produced the employment record of deceased and
proved the same as Ex.PW4/1 (colly), Ex.PW4/2 (colly),
Ex.PW4/3 & Ex.PW4/4.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 5/ 26
7. As per report of learned Court Commissioner, after examining the
above witnesses, evidence of parties was closed as learned counsel
for the insurance company did not wish to lead evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the evidence and other materials placed on
record. My findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1
Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.
UP14-JT-7988 on 01.07.2022 at about 11:35 p.m., near Hemkund
Petrol Pump, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P., within the jurisdiction of
PS Sahibabad in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of
deceased Sh. Narender Kumar Gautam? OPP
9. On this issue, PW2 Rajveer Singh, by way of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A
deposed to have witnessed the accident in question. He deposed that
the Eicher truck bearing no. UP14-JT-7988 driven by its driver at a
very high speed, rashly and negligently, had hit the motorcyclist
from the back side, due to which motorcycle rider fell down on the
road and was run over by the said truck, resulting into death of the
deceased. PW2 deposed that his statement was recorded by Inspector
Sanjeev Kumar on 16.02.2022, wherein he had narrated the entire
incident. PW2 placed on record copy of the case diary (Mark-A) to
showing his statement recorded in criminal case.
10. PW2 was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the
insurance company, which is as under:
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 6/ 26
“Deceased Narender Kumar Gautam was not known to me.
On the date of accident, I went to Hemkunt Petrol pump,
which is nearby Seemapuri – U. P. Border for filling the
petrol in my vehicle. I do not have the receipt/ cash memo of
petrol pump. It is wrong to suggest that I had not gone to the
petrol pump on the day of accident for filling of petrol in my
car. There was proper lighting at the spot. I have seen the
accident from the distance of about 20 meters. The
offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of deceased from his
backside. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased suddenly
applied the break of his motorcycle and that is why the said
accident has caused. There is a divider on the road, where
the accident took place. The width of the road was around
40-50 ft. Just after the accident, I had parked my car at the
spot of accident and came out from my car. I noted the
number of the said offending truck bearing No.UP- 14JT-
7988. Lots of people gathered at the spot and I was remained
present at the spot about 30 minutes. I did not intimate the
police. I was not carrying mobile, so that I could not
informed the police or ambulance. I do not know who called
the police. Police did not reach at the spot till I was present.
The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. I
was informed by the police that they had taken CCTV
footage from place of accident, in which my vehicle was
shown. Thereafter police persons came at my home and
made some inquiries about the said accident and then I was
called to police chowki Seemapuri Border for recording my
statements. My statement was recorded by the police on
16.07.2022 in the police chowki Seemapuri Border. After
recording my statement, I was not taken to the spot by the
police. I did not inform the police regarding the said
accident as I was busy in my work. I did not receive any
summon from Ghaziabad Court regarding my evidence in
criminal case in regard of the said accident. It is wrong to
suggest that neither I was present at the spot not I have seen
the accident and this the reason, the police has not made my______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 7/ 26
eye witness in the charge sheet. Vol. the IO cited me as eye
witness after filing of the charge sheet and in this regard, the
document Mark- A placed on judicial record of criminal
case. It is wrong to suggest that the driver of the truck was
not negligent for the accident. It is wrong to suggest that the
deceased himself was negligent. It is wrong to suggest that I
am deposing falsely in order to support the case of the
petitioner.”
11. Having gone through the entire deposition of the eyewitness PW2,
whose statement is also found recorded during investigation by the
Investigating Officer on 16.07.2022, as per case diary Mark-A and
who is an independent witness, this Tribunal finds nothing which
may demolish or impeach his testimony on the aspect of a rash and
negligent act of respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle.
Besides, nothing else is available on record which may suggest any
falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of eye-witness.
12. On perusal of the criminal case record Ex.PW1/1 (colly), this
Tribunal finds that the accident had occurred in the night and FIR
was registered on the next morning itself without any delay and
registration number of the offending vehicle is found clearly
mentioned in the FIR. Though certified copy of seizure memo of the
offending vehicle has not been placed on record, however,
statements of the eye-witness (Mark-A) as recorded by the
Investigating Officer on 16.07.2022 makes it clear that the driver had
fled away from the spot after leaving the offending truck at the spot.
Moreover, no suggestion has been given to the eye-witness (PW2)
that the offending vehicle was not seized from the spot itself after the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 8/ 26
accident, rather the suggestion which has been categorically given to
the eye-witness is that ” it is wrong to suggest that the driver of the
truck was not negligent for the accident”, which implies that the
involvement of the offending truck in the accident is not in dispute at
all. The Site Plan of the place of accident, mechanical inspection
report of the offending vehicle and that of the motorcycle of
deceased, charge-sheet and postmortem report of deceased, which
are part of the criminal case record Ex.PW1/1 (colly) also support
the occurrence of the accident as per version of the eyewitness.
13. It is not disputed that the respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted in the
criminal case for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC by the
police after detailed investigation and in a motor vehicle accident
claim case, the contents of charge sheet are admissible in evidence
and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident
Tribunal Rules, 2008, which support the testimony of PW2 regarding
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
no.1.
14. And also, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of
the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioners. The
respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into
the witness box to challenge the testimony of the eyewitness (PW2)
regarding the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to
enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that
the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 9/ 26
the offending vehicle by him in view of the law laid down in case of
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh,
2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
15. Above all, it is notable that during enquiry proceedings before this
Tribunal, the insurance company was ready to settle the matter and
vide order sheet dated 26.02.2024, my learned predecessor had
observed as under:
“xxx During the settlement proceedings, learned counsel for
insurance company submits that insurance company is willing
to settle the present case with petitioner as per minimum wages
@ Rs.21,700/- per month. However, learned counsel for
petitioner stated that the deceased was in service in Reliance
Retail Ltd., Delhi and earning Rs.40,361/- per month.
Therefore, witness may be summoned from the Accounts
Department of Reliance Retail Ltd. Delhi, for next date of
hearing. xxx”
16. Thus, it is clear that insurance company was ready to settle the
matter during enquiry proceedings, which further strengthen the
version of the petitioners qua involvement of the offending vehicle in
accident by rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1.
17. The certified copy of the postmortem report which is part of the
criminal case record Ex.PW1/1 (colly) reveals that the deceased
Narender Kumar Gautam had received multiple antemortem injuries
and his death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result
of said antemortem injuries.
18. Besides above, it is settled proposition of law that in an action
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 10/ 26
founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However,
the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and
evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of
probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the
Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are
not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal.
Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No.
550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530,
Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
19. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and the evidence brought
on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on
the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to deceased
Naresh Kumar Gautam. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided in favour
of petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP
20. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 above, it is held that
petitioners are entitled to get the compensation in this case.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 11/ 26
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
21. 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 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 a pittance.
22. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines were laid
down for death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157),
decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for
computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of
the judgment are reproduced here as under:
“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.
These 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.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 12/ 26
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 multipliers with
reference to the age 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______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 13/ 26
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.”
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take
into consideration the following parameters:
PECUNIARY DAMAGE
Age of deceased
23. The Aadhaar Card, Driving License and PAN Card of the deceased,
which have been proved on record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) reflect his
year of birth as 15.11.1988, which would mean that on the date of
accident on 01.07.2022, he was 33 years of age.
Assessment of Income of deceased
24. In this regard, PW4 Ms. Richa Royal, Human Resources Business
Partner (HRBP) of Reliance Retail Limited, Delhi, the deceased
Narender Kumar Gautam (employee code: 50022780) was working
as Assistant Manager in the said company and proved on record the
computer-generated offer/ appointment letter to the deceased
containing details of salary, terms and conditions of employment, as
on 01.07.2016 as Ex.PW4/1 (colly); salary slip of deceased for the
month of May & June-2022 as Ex.PW4/2 (colly); certificate to the
effect that deceased worked with Reliance Retail w.e.f. 01.07.2016
till 01.07.2022 as Ex.PW4/3 and salary slip of deceased for the
month of June-2022 as Ex.PW4/4. PW4 deposed that at the time of
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 14/ 26
joining, the CTC (Cost to Company) of deceased was fixed as
Rs.3,38,136/-. She further stated that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was getting as annual CTC of Rs.4,63,400/-.
25. On perusal of the employment record produced by PW4, it is seen
that as per salary slip of May-2022 and June-2022, the deceased was
drawing Rs.37,165.91 as monthly salary, which includes Basic Pay,
House Rent Allowance, Residual Choice Pay, Sales Incentive and
Bonus Monthly. Further, PW4 made it clear that there was no
deduction for income tax as the salary of the deceased was not
taxable. It is noteworthy here that during cross-examination of PW4,
a relevant suggestion was put to her that Residual Choice Pay, Sales
Incentive and Bonus are not fixed salary but the said suggestion was
promptly denied by the PW4, who clarified by voluntarily adding
that the same are the part of fixed salary. The PW4, when asked
about her authority letter, she stated that she herself is the HR head
of the company and therefore, she required no authority. On perusal
of the entire deposition of PW4, I do not find anything which may
contradict or challenge the veracity of the details of employment and
salary record of the deceased produced by her. Therefore, income of
deceased is considered to be Rs.37,166/- as per his last drawn salary
slips showing his monthly salary as Rs.37,165.91/-, which have been
proved on record as Ex.PW4/2 (colly).
Application of Multiplier
26. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of
compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 15/ 26
SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the
judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in
accordance with age are as under:
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 &
21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
The deceased was 33 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, in view of the above said judgment, a multiplier of 16,
applicable to the age group of 31-35 years has to be applied in this
case to determine the compensation.
Future Prospects
27. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are
reproduced here as under:
“(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 16/ 26
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10%
where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.
The deceased Narender Kumar Gautam was working as Assistant
Manager in Reliance Retail Limited, Delhi as proved on record by
PW4, the witness from the employer of the deceased. The documents
(Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/4) produced by the said witness make it clear
that the job of deceased was of permanent nature and thus, in view of
the aforementioned judgment, an addition of 50% of the income of
the deceased, who belonged to the age group below 40 years, has to
be considered towards future prospects.
Deduction Towards Personal Living Expenses
28. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased,
necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the
deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.,
(2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions
towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 17/ 26
Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependentsWhere dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3
Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6
Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)
29. The deceased left behind his wife, two minor children and parents,
therefore, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted
towards his personal living expenses.
Loss of Income:
30. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various
judgments referred herein above by applying the multiplier of 16,
after making deduction of one-fourth of the income of the deceased
with an addition of 50% future prospects, the loss of dependency is
computed as Rs.80,27,856/- (37,166×150/100×3/4x16x12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
31. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated
31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra), a
compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively
has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 18/ 26
32. The accident in this case occurred on 01.07.2022. Therefore, a
compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/-
respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.,
Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, claimants are
required to be granted spousal consortium, parental consortium and
filial consortium. Accordingly, all the five petitioners, being wife,
children and parents of the deceased shall be entitled to the
consortium. Thus, the following amounts are awarded under the
conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Loss of Consortium :
(a). Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/-
(b). Parental Consortium Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2)
(c). Filial Consortium Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2)
2. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
Total = Rs.2,53,000/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,53,000/-
under this head.
33. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.82,80,856/-
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 19/ 26
(80,27,856+2,53,000), rounded off to Rs.82,81,000/-.
INTEREST ON AWARD
34. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the
award amount from the date of filing of the petition till its
realization.
LIABILITY
35. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has
contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and, in
this case, the insurance company has not been able to prove on
record that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/
violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.3/ insurance company
is held liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner(s).
RELIEF
36. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed the present
claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed;
AWARD
37. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.82,81,000/- (Rs. Eighty
Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Only) to the petitioners along with
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
realization to be paid by the insurance company. The interim
compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount
along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 20/ 26
during the pendency of this case.
38. The insurance company/ respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the
award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code
UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT,
Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
39. All the five petitioners being wife, children and parents of deceased,
shall be entitled to the compensation and they shall the award
amount of Rs.82,81,000/- along with interest thereon, in the
following manner:
S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount
Petitioner (PresentAge) Deceased
1 Arti Gautam 24 years Wife Rs.43,81,000/- along with
corresponding interest
2 Aradhya 06 years Daughter Rs.15,00,000/- along with
Gautam corresponding interest
3 Naman 03 years Son Rs.15,00,000/- along with
Gautam corresponding interest
4 Beby 52 years Mother Rs.7,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
5 Devki Nandan 76 years Father Rs.2,00,000/- along with
Gautam corresponding interest
40. It It is directed that after compliance of the award, Manager, UCO
Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release a sum of Rs.8,81,000/-
along with corresponding interest to the petitioner no.1 and rest of
her share amounting to Rs.35,00,000/ along with the interest on that
amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 21/ 26
MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of
120 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) each to be prepared in her
name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 120 months in succession,
as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh
Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
41. The entire share of minor claimants i.e. petitioner no.2 Aradhya
Gautam and petitioner no.3 Naman Gautam, amounting to
Rs.15,00,000/- each along with corresponding interest shall be kept
secured in the form one FDR each in their name for the period till
they attain the age of majority. However, the quarterly interest on the
said FDRs shall be transferred into the MACT Saving Bank Account
of their mother/ petitioner no.1 Arti Gautam for meeting education
expenses of the minor petitioners. It is also directed that after
attaining the age of majority, the amount of aforesaid FDRs shall be
converted into Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
in the form of 50 monthly FDRs each in the name of minor
petitioners, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months
each in succession.
42. Further, Manager, UCO Bank is directed that entire share of the
petitioner no.4, amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest on
that amount shall be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the
form of 50 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in
her name, payable to her for a period of 1 to 50 months in
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 22/ 26
succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as
Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
43. Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma is directed that after
compliance of the award, entire share of petitioner no.5, amounting
to Rs.2,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest shall be kept
with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 10 monthly FDRs
(fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her name, payable to her for
a period of 1 to 10 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018
in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir
Singh & Others.
44. The amount of aforesaid FDRs of petitioners on maturity would be
released in MACT saving bank account of the respective petitioner
without any further order to that effect.
Directions for Opening Bank Account of Claimants
45. The petitioners are directed to get opened their saving bank account
near the place of their residence. The Bank of petitioner(s) is directed
to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the
savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual
savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 23/ 26
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
the 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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s)
near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not 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.
46. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII),
the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 01.07.2022
2. Name of the deceased : Narender Kumar Gautam
3. Age of the deceased : 33 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Permanent Job
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 24/ 26
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.37,166/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No Name of the Age Relation with Share in Award Amount
Petitioner (Present Age) Deceased1 Arti Gautam 24 years Wife Rs.43,81,000/- along with
corresponding interest
2 Aradhya 06 years Daughter Rs.15,00,000/- along with
Gautam corresponding interest
3 Naman 03 years Son Rs.15,00,000/- along with
Gautam corresponding interest
4 Beby 52 years Mother Rs.7,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
5 Devki Nandan 76 years Father Rs.2,00,000/- along with
corresponding interestComputation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.37,166/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 50% Rs.18,583/-
9. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased Rs.13,937.25/-
(C) @ 1/4
10. Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B)-C = Rs.41,811.75/-
D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.5,01,741/-
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.80,27,856/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.2,20,000/-
(44,000×5)
16. Compensation for loss of love and —
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 25/ 26
affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.16,500/-
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.82,80,856/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L) rounded off to
Rs.82,81,000/-
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 8%
21. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.13,06,558/-
(M) (for 01 year, 11 months & 20 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.95,87,558/-
23. Award amount released Rs.8,81,856/- along with
interest
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.74,00,000/-along with
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank transfer
amount to the claimants (s).
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 04.10.2024
47. With these directions, the present claim case is disposed of. File be
consigned to Record Room.
VIJAY Digitally signed
by VIJAY KUMAR
KUMAR JHA
Date: 2024.08.21
JHA 16:19:00 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Vijay Kumar Jha)
on 21.08.2024 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no.407/2022; Aarti Gautam & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. Page 26/ 26