Delhi District Court
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 1 Of 18 on 20 November, 2018
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 1 of 18
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL , PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 5056516
MACT PETITION No. : 475/14
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010012992014
Sh. Mukesh Sehgal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Sehgal
R/o C9/79, Sector5, Rohini, Delhi85
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Nitin Bansal S/o Sh. P.C. Bansal
R/o Flat No. 89, Jamna Appartments,
Sector9, Rohini, Delhi.
.... (Driver cum owner /R1)
2. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd.
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
NearSiddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai
......... (Insurance/R2)
..... Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.11.2014
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13.11.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2018
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 1 of 18
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 2 of 18
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 CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 24.11.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is the case of
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal damage of property
(Clause 2) wherein no DAR was
filed.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the It is the case of
investigating officer to the insurance company. damage of property
(Clause 2) wherein no DAR was
filed
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 It is the case of
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate damage of property
(Clause 10) wherein no DAR was
filed
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information It is the case of
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before damage of property
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) wherein no DAR was
filed
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance It is the case of
Company (Clause 11) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). It is the case of
(Clause 11) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? It is the case of
(Clause 16) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed It is the case of
later on? damage of property
wherein no DAR was
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 2 of 18
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 3 of 18
filed
10. Whether the police has verified the documents It is the case of
filed with DAR? (Clause 4) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is the case of
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, damage of property
whether any action/direction warranted? wherein no DAR was
filed
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer It is the case of
by the insurance Company. (Clause20) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
13. Name, address and contact number of the It is the case of
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. damage of property
(Clause 20) wherein no DAR was
filed
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance It is the case of
Company submitted his report within 30 days of damage of property
the DAR? (Clause 20) wherein no DAR was
filed
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the It is the case of
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of damage of property
the insurance company fairly computed the wherein no DAR was
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause filed
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on It is the case of
the part of the Designated Officer of the damage of property
Insurance Company? If so, whether any wherein no DAR was
action/direction warranted? filed
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer It is the case of
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) damage of property
wherein no DAR was
filed
18. Date of the Award 20.11.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 27.02.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 3 of 18
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 4 of 18
and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 04.09.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sh.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Mukesh Kumar
IFSC Code (Clause 27) savings bank a/c no.
09121000707582
with Punjab & Sind
Bank, Sector3,
Rohini branch, Delhi.
IFSC : PSIB000A912
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. Present claim petition has been preferred under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,47,526/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Six Only) along with interest @ 12% per annum in respect of damage of vehicle no. DL4CND1151 in a motor vehicular accident.
2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that on 24.11.2012 at 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 4 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 5 of 18 about 1:15 am, petitioner Sh. Mukesh (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') was driving his car no. DL4CND1151 (Hyundai Santro) and was returning to his home at Rohini, Delhi after attending marriage ceremony at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. When his vehicle reached at Deepali Chowk, Outer Ringh road, Delhi and proceeded to cross the green signal, at that time one Santro car no. DL 2CAE6276 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') came from Peeragarhi side at a high speed, rashly and negligently and hit the car of petitioner. Due to said impact the car of petitioner was badly damaged.
It has been mentioned in the petition that FIR No. 274/12 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS South Rohini, Delhi.
The petitioner has mentioned in the petition that he claims Rs. 2,00,000/ towards compensation on account of inconvenience, agony and time loss. It was further mentioned in the petition that total Rs. 1,47,526/ was incurred on repair of the car, out of which Rs. 63,017/ was paid by the petitioner and Rs. 84,809/ was paid by insurer of Car no. DL4CND1151.
3. R1/Sh. Nitin Bansal/driver cum owner of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement wherein he has stated that the alleged accident had not arisen out of the use of his vehicle as the petitioner in his statement, on the basis of which a FIR No. 274/12 u/s 279/338 IPC and 119/177 of M.V. Act was registered, had alleged that the complainant could not record the number of the vehicle and that either it was bearing no. DL8 or DL6 or 6276 and car was of black colour. He has stated that entire proceedings have been instituted by the petitioner with oblique and ulterior motive only to extort the money from him. He stated that the case accident did not arise out of the use of his vehicle.
4. R2/ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. Ltd filed its written statement wherein it has stated that petition was not maintainable as the petitioner has no concern with the ownership of the vehicle bearing no. DL4CND1151 and therefore, he had not filed any document qua the ownership of that vehicle. It was stated that the bills were also issued in the name of one Mr. Bajaj on 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 5 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 6 of 18 account of Mukesh Sehgal. It has been stated that the driver of the vehicle bearing no. DL2CAE6276 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy bearing no. 3001/74101857/00/000 for the period from 06.10.2012 to 05.10.2013 i.e. covering the date of accident 24.11.2012.
5. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement of R1 wherein he reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition and controverted the facts as mentioned in the written statement of R1. He referred to the reply given by R1 upon notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act.
6. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement of R2 wherein he reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition and controverted the facts as mentioned in the written statement of R2. He further stated that the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. DL4CND1151 was insured by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co. Ltd which had paid Rs. 84,809/ out of total repair cost of Rs. 1,47,526/ and that he had paid Rs. 63,017/ in cash against the raised bill.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, some issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 30.08.2016, however during hearing of final arguments, it was an admitted position and also transpired that issue no. 1 as earlier framed required reframing, hence, with the consent of all the parties before the court, the issues were reframed as under : (1) Whether on 24.11.2012 at about 1:15 am, at Deepali Chowk outer ring road, Delhi, one Santro car bearing registration no. DL 2CAE6276, which was being driven rashly and negligently by R1/Nitin Bansal, hit Santro car bearing registration no. DL4CND 1151 and caused damage to the car of petitioner? OPP (2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3). Relief.
It was stated by all the parties during final arguments that all the 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 6 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 7 of 18 evidence had already been lead by them and they do not want to lead any further evidence after reframing of issues.
8. The petitioner in support of his case has examined himself as PW1 and Sh. Amit Kumar Bhatt as PW2.
Respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their respective case.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner, ld counsel for R1 and ld counsel for insurance co/R2. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
10. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioner.
PW1 Sh. Mukesh Sehgal has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the certified copy of report u/s 173 Cr.PC as Ex. PW1/1, arrest memo of R1/driver as Ex. PW1/2, registration certificate as Ex. PW1/3, inspection report of the offending vehicle as Ex. PW1/4, certified copy of seizure memo as Ex. PW1/5, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of Car as Ex. PW1/6, original bill regarding repairing of the car as Ex. PW1/7 (running into eight pages), original bill no. 174 as Ex. PW1/8 and original bill no. 1216 as Ex. PW1/9. He has also proved the copy of FIR along with statement of petitioner, photo of vehicle, site plan, inspection of vehicle, notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act which are collectively marked as Mark A, copy of insurance of offending vehicle is marked as Mark B, copy of driving licence of R1/drive is marked as Mark D and copy of tax invoice as mark E. PW1/petitioner deposed that on 24.11.2012 at about 1:15 am, he was driving his car no. DL4CND1151 (Hyundai Santro) and was returning to his home at Rohini, Delhi after attending marriage ceremony at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He deposed that when his vehicle reached at the crossing of Deepali 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 7 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 8 of 18 Chowk, Outer Ring road, Delhi on green signal, at that time one Santro car of dark grey colour no. DL2CAE6276 ( 'offending vehicle') came from Peeragarhi side at a high speed, rashly and negligently and hit his car on the left side. He deposed that due to said impact his car turned turtle on the road and was badly damaged.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of R1 wherein he inter alia deposed that FIR bearing no. 274 dated 24.11.2012 has been lodged on his statement and admitted that he had narrated the registration number of the offending vehicle as DL8 or 6 or 6276 in the FIR. He deposed that he had mentioned the colour of the offending vehicle as black in the FIR and volunteered that he had mentioned in the FIR the colour of the offending vehicle as black, because the colour of the offending vehicle was dark grey which seemed to be black in the night. He deposed that he had told to the IO regarding the exact registration number of the offending vehicle and its actual colour on 12.12.2012. He deposed that at the time of accident, he had called the PCR at 100 number and since his wife was in critical condition so he was busy looking after her and during investigation, he told to the IO the details. He deposed that he gave the number of the offending vehicle correctly to the IO as the offending vehicle was also standing in the workshop where he had sent his vehicle for repair, he identified the offending vehicle there on 12.12.2012, noted down its registration number and thereafter also made a complaint in PS. He deposed that at the time of accident, he could see the number of offending vehicle as DL8 or 6 or 6276 and part of the number i.e. "DL2CAE"
could not be noted down by him at that time. He deposed that on the date of accident he had noted down the said number of the offending vehicle in his mind and not on any paper. He deposed that the eye witness namely Sh. Brij Lal had approached him at his residence in the month of December and told about the accident and registration number of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Brij Lal was not residing in his locality or that he had friendly relation with Sh. Brij Lal and at his request he became the eye witness in the present matter. He denied the suggestion that he had taken Mr. 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 8 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 9 of 18 Brij Lal to the police or that he himself had not gone to the police. He volunteered that Mr. Brij Lal has already expired. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared a false witness in the form of Mr. Brij Lal to claim compensation in this case. He volunteered that he was fully conscious while driving the vehicle at the relevant time. He denied the suggestions that he had fallen asleep while driving the vehicle at the time of accident or that the vehicle which he was driving did not collide with the offending vehicle or that his vehicle had struck a divider as he had fallen asleep or that his falling sleep was the main cause of the accident or that he had seen the offending vehicle being repaired at Hyundai Service Centre, SP Badli or that after that he falsely implicated the vehicle in this case to claim compensation/damages.
PW1 was also cross examined by ld counsel for R2/insurance co. wherein he has inter alia deposed that at the time of accident, at about 1:15 am (night), he was coming after attending a party from Punjabi Bagh. He denied the suggestion that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident or that the accident was caused due to his own negligence that is why he did not come forward for his medical examination on that day.
The certified copy of criminal case record has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/1 which would show that R1 was charge sheeted u/s 279/338 IPC & 119/177 M.V. Act qua the case accident.
It has been mentioned in the charge sheet that on 11.12.2012 the complainant/petitioner came to the police station and intimated that vehicle no. DL2CAE6276 which had caused the accident on 24.11.2012 had been traced out by him and that it was standing at Hyundai workshop Sector18, Rohini, Delhi. It has also been mentioned in the charge sheet that thereafter SI Balkisan along with complainant reached Hans Hyundai Badli Industrial Area and requested through an application that the offending vehicle should not be repaired. It has further been stated that during investigation eye witness Brij Lal accompanied the complainant to the police station and stated that he had noted down the registration number of the offending car which had 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 9 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 10 of 18 caused the case accident on 24.11.2012 at Deepali Chowk as DL2CAE 6276. It has also been mentioned in the charge sheet that thereafter notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was also given to Mr. Nitin Bansal/R1 i.e. register owner of the offending vehicle who stated that on 24.11.2012 at about 1:00 pm, he was driving the said car and it had met with an accident at Deepali Chowk.
The copy of notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act along with the reply of R1 is a part of Ex. PW1/1 . The seizure memo of the offending vehicle DL2CAE6276 is also on record. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle Ex. PW1/4 would also show that it had suffered damages and the front side damaged portion of the body of the car was found freshly repaired. The mechanical inspection report of the Santro car of the petitioner has also been proved as Ex. PW1/6 which would also show substantial fresh damages.
Nothing has been shown on record as to why the reliance cannot be placed upon the charge sheet and necessary accompanying documents. The charge sheet which was prepared by police agency of the State can be safely relied upon for the purpose of present matter for damages of property/car under M.V. Act.
In the said circumstances, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and thereby damaged the above said vehicle of the petitioner.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
11. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
The original bill dated 20.03.2013 of Hans Hyundai, Badli Industrial Area qua vehicle of the petitioner no. DL4CND1151 has been proved as Ex. PW1/7. Its grand total is Rs. 1,38,809/. The record would show that the 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 10 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 11 of 18 original payment receipt of this bill is also on record which would show that Rs. 54,000/ were paid against it by Bajaj A/c Mukesh Sehgal. One another bill no. 174 dated 04.04.2013 of CAR SHOW of Rs. 3400/ has been proved as Ex. PW1/8. One another original bill no. 1216 of MANI DHARI AUTOMOBILS dated 05.04.2013 of Rs. 2981/ has been proved as Ex. PW1/9. One another bill no. SP 300158 dated 11.04.2013 by AUTOCOP India Pvt Ltd of Rs. 2336/ is Mark E. PW1/petitioner in his cross examination by ld counsel for insurance co/R2 admitted to be correct that the bill Ex. PW1/7 was prepared in the name of Mr. Bajaj and volunteered that the same should be referred as M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. He denied the suggestion that the said bill was issued in the name of one Mr. Bajaj and not in the name of M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. and therefore name of the company has not been mentioned in the said bills. He denied the suggestion that no amount was incurred on the repair of the vehicle bearing registration number DL4CND1151. He deposed that the bill Mark E was in respect of body repair of the said car and further deposed that it is nowhere mentioned in it that it was in respect of said car and that it was not signed by anyone. He denied the suggestion that bills as filed were forged and fabricated or that no loss had been caused to the aforesaid vehicle.
As discussed above, the mechanical inspection report of the damaged Santro car of the petitioner with registration No. DL4CND1151 has been proved as Ex. PW1/6 showing substantial damage and fresh damages to the said vehicle. The date of the case accident is 24.11.2012 and Ex. PW1/6 is dated 26.11.2012 which would show that the said vehicle of the petitioner suffered substantial damages in the case accident.
PW2 Sh. Amit Kumar Bhatt who was warranty incharge at Hans Hyundai, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi deposed that the bill Ex. PW1/7 pertained to the repair of vehicle no. DL4CND1151 i.e. the above said vehicle of the petitioner and that it was received for repairs at their workshop from M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. He deposed that name of Mr. Bajaj as mentioned in Ex. PW1/7 referred to M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd and in the bill 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 11 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 12 of 18 Mr. Bajaj was shortly mentioned for the said insurance company. He admitted that the name of Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. was not mentioned in the job card Ex. PW2/R2W1 and that it was issued in the name of petitioner. He also deposed that the said vehicle was received for repair for the first time on 26.11.2012 in the afternoon and he could not tell the reason for damage of the said vehicle. He did not know whether they recorded the reason for the damage caused to the vehicle which came for repair in their workshop.
It has already been held above, that the car of the petitioner suffered damages in the case accident after it was hit by the offending vehicle being driven by R1. The case accident is dated 24.11.2012 and PW2 while referring to bill Ex. PW1/7 has specifically deposed that it pertained to repair of vehicle no. DL4CND1151 and that it was received for repair for the first time on 26.11.2012 in the afternoon.
In view of said evidence on record and substantial damages suffered by the car of the petitioner as mentioned in mechanical inspection report Ex. PW1/6, their would not be any merit in the arguments of the ld counsels for respondents that as Ex. PW1/7 is dated 20.03.2013 hence, the petitioner has failed to show that the said bill has a nexus with the case accident. The testimony of PW2 would specifically show that the bill Ex. PW1/7 pertained to the repair of vehicle no. DL4CND1151 and that the said vehicle was received for repair by them for the first time on 26.11.2012 in the afternoon. The said bill Ex. PW1/7 (colly) is of total Rs. 1,38,809/, however the accompanying receipt would show that Rs. 54,000/ were paid against it. There is no other receipt on record of payment qua the said bill. As mentioned above, the petitioner in his petition has admitted that out of Rs. 1,47,526/ incurred on the repair of the car, Rs. 63,017/ was paid by him and Rs. 84,809/ was paid by insurer of the said car. R2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is thus liable to pay Rs. 54,000/ towards the bill Ex. PW1/7 (colly) paid by the petitioner towards the cost of repair of damages of his above said car. In facts, the said amount of Rs. 54,000/ is being granted as compensation to be paid by R2 to the petitioner.475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 12 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 13 of 18
As far as bills Ex. PW1/8 & Ex. PW1/9 are concerned, no witness has been examined by the petitioner from CAR SHOW or MANI DHARI AUTOMOBILES to prove that they relate to the damage suffered by the said car in the case accident. In the said circumstances, the amount of said bills are not granted to the petitioner. As far as bill Mark E is concerned, it is an admitted position that nothing has been mentioned in it to show that it pertained to the above said car of the petitioner or that it is concerning any damage caused to it in the case accident. In facts, the amount of said bill Mark E is also not granted to the petitioner.
As far as the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ as prayed by the petitioner on account of inconvenience, agony, time loss etc is concerned, no evidence was lead on the same and even the same have not been pressed upon during the final arguments of the case. The same are thus also not granted to the petitioner.
In view of above said discussion, only Rs. 54,000/ are being granted to the petitioner to be paid by R2/Insurance co towards the payment made by him towards the repair of his car which was damaged in the case accident.
12. Liability In the case in hand, the ICICI Lombard General Insurance company/R2 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid. It would be pertinent to note that the respondents including the R2 have not lead any evidence in this case. In facts and ss per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
13. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., ICICI Lombard General Insurance company/R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 13 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 14 of 18 Rs.54,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2/Insurance co to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2/insurance co further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith 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
14. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & 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: Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, on realization, an amount of Rs. 25,000/ be released to him in his savings bank account a/c no.09121000707582 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector3, Rohini branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in his name in 6 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 6 months with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further directions: 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 14 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 15 of 18
(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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature 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.
(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.
15. Relief As discussed above, R2/Insurance co is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 54,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.11.2014 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 15 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 16 of 18 intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioners and their advocates failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days. R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the 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. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 2 for compliance within the granted time.
Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
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 & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
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, the statement of petitioners was also recorded wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
16. 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. The insurance co./R2 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioner from the record.
Digitally signedAMIT by AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2018.11.20 17:25:51 +0530 Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL) on 20th November 2018 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 16 of 18 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 17 of 18 FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 24.11.2012
2. Name of injured Nil (matter pertains only to damage of property).
3. Age of the injured N/A
4. Occupation of the injured: N/A
5. Income of the injured. N/A
6. Nature of injury: N/A
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. N/A
8. Period of hospitalization: N/A
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
N/A
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment N/A as it is a case of damage of property only
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance N/A
(iii) Expenditure on special diet N/A
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant N/A
(v) Loss of earning capacity N/A
(vi) Loss of income N/A
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 17 of 18
475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 18 of 18
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 54,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 19,440/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 73,440/
18. Award amount released Rs. 25,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 48,440/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 22.12.2018 (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2018.11.20 17:26:02 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
20.11.2018 475/14 Mukesh Sehgal vs Nitin Bansal Page 18 of 18