Delhi District Court
Mohd. Irshad vs . Bikram & Ors. on 31 March, 2022
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. JASJEET KAUR, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 535/18
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010089382018
Mohd. Irshad, s/o Mohd. Iliyash,
R/o F2/400, Gali No.4,
Sundar Nagari, Delhi.
Presently residing at:
Khasra No.543, Plot No.6,
Mandoli Village Mandoli,
Delhi110093.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Bikram, S/o Sh. Okil Singh,
R/o Village Nangla,
PS and Teh. Nurpur,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
....... Driver /R1
2. Sh. Darshan Lal, S/o not known
R/o D42, Bhagat Singh Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
.....Owner/R2
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.
Ground Floor, Eros Tower,
Opp. Nehru Place Metro Station,
Nehru Place, Delhi.
... Insurance co/R3
Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 31.03.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 29.03.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2022
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 1 of35
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & 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 04.02.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 31.03.2012
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 31.03.2012
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 31.03.2012
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company 31.03.2012
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 31.03.2012
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes.
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A.
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N/A.
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 31.03.2012
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Kapil Chawla
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 2 of35
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
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 deficiency on the NA
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 the offer of 06.12.2012
the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 31.03.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of No
the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 29.07.2019
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 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) produced the 29.07.2019
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 Claimant(s) As mentioned above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Arman
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with IFSC savings bank a/c
Code No.3691661790 with
Central Bank of India,
Dilshad Garden
Branch, Delhi
IFSC :CBIN0283800
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is Yes
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 3 of35
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) filed on 31.03.2012 with reference to FIR No.31/12 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh in respect of commission of offences of causing hurt by a rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) wherein subsequent charge sheet for the alleged commission of the aforementioned offences of causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle on a public road by using a forged driving licence as genuine punishable u/s 279/338/471 IPC and u/s 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) against one Sh. Bikram Singh was also filed in respect of grievous hurt sustained by one Irshad (hereinafter referred to as the injured/ the petitioner/the claimant). The learned Predecessor Court had vide order dated 31.03.2012 treated the DAR as petition u/s 166(4) of the M.V. Act.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR and the documents of the petitioner are that on 04.02.2012, Mohd. Irshad was travelling from the side of Badli Village towards his residence at Sunder Nagari Delhi via Outer Ring Road as a rider on motorcycle make CD Dawn bearing registration No. DL7SAX4823 on which his brother Mohd. Arman was a pillion rider and at Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 4 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
about 12.00 noon, upon reaching near Badli bus stand, a truck bearing registration no. HR55P6834(hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') coming from the side of Madhuban Chowk being driven by its driver Bikram Singh (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the offending vehicle/the Respondent Number 1/R1) at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had hit against their motorcycle from behind, as a consequence of which the petitioner along with his brother had sustained grievous injuries and were removed to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Dr. BSA Hospital) where he was medically examined vide MLC No.A528/12 wherein it had been mentioned that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right and early operative side infection as well as scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over the body.
3. R1/Sh. Bikram Singh, who was the driver of the offending vehicle and Sh. Darshan Lal Dora who was the owner of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred to as respondent number 2 or R2) had filed their joint written statement wherein they had claimed that the offending vehicle was duly insured by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vide insurance policy bearing No.2315200193613800000 commencing from 14.01.2012 and expiring on midnight of 13.01.2013 and therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation to the victims of the accident in question as the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was live and valid on the date of occurrence of the alleged accident. Besides, it had been claimed by R1 and R2 in their written statement that at the relevant time of occurrence of the case accident, R1 was having a valid driving licence issued by the competent authority.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 5 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
4. HDFC ERGO Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent number 3 or R3) had filed its written statement wherein it was admitted that offending vehicle/truck was insured with it vide policy No.2315200193613800000 commencing with effect from 14.01.2012 and expiring on midnight of 13.01.2013 and therefore the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident i.e 04.02.2012 and the policy stood valid in favour of R2. Besides, it had been claimed in the written statement of R3 that upon verification the driving licence submitted by R1 was found to be a fake or forged document and accordingly, the investigating officer of the present matter had added charges of commission of offences of use of forged driving licence(document) as genuine as well as charge for commission of offence of driving of a motor vehicle without a valid driving licence punisbale u/s 471 IPC and 3/181 M. V. Act respectively were added in the chargesheet filed against R1. Thus, the R3 had claimed that R1 and R2 had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by using a forged driving licence as genuine for the purpose of driving a motorvehicle on a public road and accordingly, the insurance company that is R3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the victim of the accident in question and the compensation, if any, was payable by R1 and R2 themselves.
5. Subsequently, R1 and R2 had stopped appearing in the Court and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.03.2022.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned predecessor court vide order dated 06.12.2012: (1) Whether on 04.02.2012 at 12.00 am, at Badli Chowk, Outer Ring Road, one truck bearing registration No. HR55P6839, being driven by Bikram Singh rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SAX4823, CD DAWN of the petitioner, who fell down and was injured?
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 6 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. OPP
(2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
7. After the framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case by leading evidence in support of the same. The petitioner had examined four witnesses in support of his version of the case. Petitioner Mohd. Irshad had examined himself as PW1, his brother Mohd. Arman as PW2, Dr. Jitender Singh, Head of Department of Orthopedics from Dr. BSA Hospital as PW3 and Dr. Mohit Sharma, Sr. Resident, Orthopedics from Dr. BSA Hospital as PW4 in support of his version of the case. 7.1 R1 and R2 had not examined any witness in support of their version of the case whereas R3 had examined one witness in support of its version of the case. 7.2 R3/HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited has examined Sh. Deependra Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal), HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited as R3W1 in support of its case.
8. I have heard the final arguments from Sh. Gaurav Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and from Sh. Chaitanya Jain as well as Sh. Kapil Chawla, learned counsels for insurance co/R3. I have also perused the record. My issuewise findings based on my appreciation of the evidence led by the parties are reproduced herein below:
9. Issue wise findings: ISSUES No. 1(1) Whether on 04.02.2012 at 12.00 am, at Badli Chowk, Outer Ring Road, one truck bearing registration No. HR55P6839, being driven by Bikram Singh rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SAX4823, CD DAWN of the petitioner, who fell down and was injured?
The onus to prove this issue on the scale of preponderance of Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 7 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
probabilities was upon the petitioner.
9.1 The petitioner/claimant has examined four witnesses in support of his case.
9.2 PW1/petitioner Mohd. Irshad deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had deposed that on 04.02.2012 at about 12.00 noon, he was travelling as a rider on motorcycle make CD Dawn bearing registration No.DL 7SAX4823 along with his brother Mohd. Arman from the side of Badli Village for the purpose of going to their residence at Sunder Nagari, Delhi via Outer Ring Road and upon reaching near Badli bus stand, a truck bearing registration no. HR55P6834 being driven by its driver Bikram Singh at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and had come from the side of Madhuban Chowk and had hit against their motorcycle from behind. He stated that due to the case accident, he had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right, early operative side infection, scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over his body. He deposed that immediately after the occurrence of the case accident, he was removed to Dr. BSA Hospital and thereafter he was admitted in GTB Hospital, Delhi on 13.02.2012 where he had undergone Open Reduction Internal Fixation(ORIF) surgery whereby plating of bones was done for management of various fractures sustained by him and he was discharged from the hospital thereafter on 27.02.2012. He stated that he was again admitted in GTB Hospital on 12.04.2012 and was discharged therefrom on 14.04.2012. The petitioner had further stated that he was earning Rs.8,000 to 10,000/ per month through his occupation as a supplier of Rat and Rodent Trappers, wire meshes and iron tavas etc. However, due to the permanent disability sustained by him, he was facing financial hardship. He Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 8 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
deposed that he was in continuous treatment from the date of occurrence of the alleged accident upto the date of preparation of his evidence by way of affidavit and had averred that he had spent Rs.1,07,000/ on his treatment, Rs.50,000/ on his physiotherapy as well as on purchasing medicines but was in possession of bills and cash memo only to the tune of Rs.29,169.59p. He had further averred in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had spent a sum of Rs.30,000/ on transportation, Rs.27,000/ on special diet at the rate of Rs.150/ per day for six months whereby he had procured vitamin enriched diets, juices, milk solids, non vegetarian diet and soups etc. for speedy recovery. He relied upon the following documents:
i. Photocopy of his Election Icard Ex.PW1/1.
ii. Photocopy of his 7th class marksheet Ex.PW1/2.
iii. His original medical bills Ex.PW1/3(colly).
iv. His discharge summaries Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 9.3 PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 as they had failed to appear in the Court to cross examine PW1. Thus, the testimony of PW1 had remained unrebutted in respect of R1 and R2. R1 and R2 shall thus be deemed to have admitted the above said testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
9.4 In his crossexamination by Sh. Kapil Chawla, learned counsel for the insurance co/R3, PW1 deposed that he was engaged in the business of selling mouse traps in streets and he could not work for 1011 months. He stated that after the case accident, he was unable to work as efficiently as he used to work prior to the case accident. He further stated that prior to the case accident, he was earning Rs.200250/ per day and after having sustained injuries in the case Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 9 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
accident, he had been earning Rs.200/ per day.
9.5 PW2 Mohd. Arman deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein he had claimed that he was one of the injured the present FIR/DAR and had reiterated the facts as mentioned in the DAR. He further stated that due to the case accident, he had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right ulna and scratches, abrasions as well as minor cut injuries on all over his body. He deposed that immediately after the accident, he was removed to Dr. BSA Hospital where he had undergone an Open Reduction Internal Fixation surgery whereby plating of bones was done for management of his fractured bones and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital with instruction to refrain from bearing load on the fractured arm as well as to seek follow up treatment in Out Patient Department(OPD). The petitioner had further claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit that he was earning Rs.8,000 to 10,000/ per month through his occupation as supplier of Rat and Rodent Trappers, wire meshes and iron tavas etc. He had deposed that he could not pursue his occupation for about eight months and accordingly, he had claimed Rs.54,000/ towards loss of income @ Rs.300/ per day for a period of about six months. He further deposed that due to the permanent disability sustained by him, he was facing financial hardship.
He stated that he could not work for about eight months after the case accident and out of the said period, he was under treatment for about six months. He deposed that he had spent Rs.48,500/ on his medical treatment, Rs.25,000/ on physiotherapy and medicines procured as per the advice of the doctor. However, he was in possession of bills and cash memos only to the tune of Rs.1,130/. He had further claimed to have spent Rs.13,500/ at the rate of Rs.150/ per day on procuring special diet including vitamin enriched diet, juices, milk solids, soups and nonvegetarian diets etc. for speedy recovery. He relied upon the following documents in support of his deposition.
i. Photocopy of his Election Icard Ex.PW2/1.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 10 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
ii. Photocopy of his report card/marksheet of 5th class Ex.PW2/2.
iii. His original medical bills are Ex.PW2/3(colly).
9.6 PW2 was not cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 as they had failed to appear in the Court to cross examine PW2. Thus, the testimony of PW2 had remained unrebutted in respect of R1 and R2. R1 and R2 shall thus be deemed to have admitted the above said testimony of PW2 to the effect that the case accident was caused by the offending vehicle being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner.
9.7 In his crossexamination by Sh. Kapil Chawla, learned counsel for the insurance co/R3, PW2 deposed that he was engaged in the business of selling mouse traps in streets and he could not work for 1011 months due to injuries sustained in the case accident. He stated that after the case accident, he was unable to work as efficiently as he used to work prior to the case accident. He further stated that prior to the case accident, he was earning Rs.200250/ per day and after having sustained injuries in the case accident, he had been earning Rs.200/ per day.
9.8 PW3 Dr. Jitender Singh, Head of Department(HOD) of Orthopedics from Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he was one of the members of the Disability Board constituted by competent authority of Dr. BSA Hospital which had examined patient/injured Arman and had thereafter issued a disability certificate bearing No.187 dated 09.01.2013 Ex.PW3/1 in favour of said Arman whereby it had been certified that patient Arman had sustained 3% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb. He identified the signatures of other members of the Board including signatures of Dr. Nirankar Singh at point B and Dr. Amreshwar Narayan at point C on the disability certificate Ex.PW3/1. 9.9 Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 had failed to appear in Court to cross examine PW3 and as such, the cross examination of PW2 on Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 11 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
behalf of R1,R2 as well as R3 was treated as nil, despite opportunity being given to them to cross examine PW3. In the said circumstances, all three respondents shall be deemed to have admitted the above detailed testimony of PW3 to the effect that victim Mohd. Arman had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 3% in relation to his right upper limb due to injuries sustained in the case accident.
9.10 PW4 Dr. Mohit Sharma, Sr. Resident, Orthopedic department from Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi had produced the summoned record pertaining to assessment of permanent disability of Mohd. Irshad who was medically examined by the Board of Doctors constituted for assessment of his permanent disability and thereafter disability certificate bearing No.156 dated 12.11.2012 Ex.PW4/A was issued in favour of said Mohd. Irshad whereby it had been certified that patient Mohd. Irshad had suffered 63% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right elbow. He identified the signatures of one of the members of the Board, namely, Dr. Jitender Singh at point X on the disability certificate Ex.PW4/A as he had seen the said doctor while writing and signing during the course of his official duties.
9.11 In response to a court question, PW4 Dr. Mohit Sharma had clarified that patient Mohd. Irshad would remain capable doing his business of selling mouse traps but would be able to lift only light weighted objects and it would be very difficult for the patient to drive(ride) a bicycle for of the supply the above said articles.
9.12 Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 had failed to appear in Court to cross examine PW4 and as such, the cross examination of PW4 on behalf of R1 and R2 was treated as nil, despite opportunity being given to them in this regard. In the said circumstances, R1 and R2 shall be deemed to have admitted the above said testimony of PW4 to the effect that Mohd Irshad had Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 12 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
sustained permanent disability to the extent of 63% in relation to his right upper limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right elbow due to injuries sustained in the case accident.
9.13 In his crossexamination by Sh. P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company/R3, PW4 admitted that he was not a member of the Board which had issued the disability certificate in question. 9.14 R1 and R2 had not examined any witness in their defence whereas R3 had examined Sh. Deependra Singh, Assistant Manager(Legal), HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited situated at Sector62, Noida as sole witness in support of its version.
9.15 R3W1 Sh. Deependra Singh deposed by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/1 wherein he had reiterated the facts narrated in the written statement of R3 by deposing that although the offending vehicle was duly insured with R3, however, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, and therefore, as such, R3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. He relied upon the insurance policy of the offending vehicle Ex.R3W1/A. 9.16 R1 and R2 had not availed the opportunity given to them by Court to cross examine R3W1. Similarly, the petitioner had failed to appear in Court to cross examine R3W1 and as such, the cross examination of R3W1 on behalf of R1,R2 as well as on behalf of the petitioner was treated as nil, despite opportunity being given to them to cross examine R3W1.
9.17 No material contradiction or discrepancy had appeared in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 to discredit their versions narrated in their examinationinchief recorded by way of affidavits and thus, it has been established that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. PW1 and PW2 are the victims who had sustained injuries in the alleged accident. They seem to be a reliable and truthful Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 13 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
witnesses who have withstood their crossexamination by defence. Besides, the two doctors from Dr. BSA Hospital, namely, Dr.Jitender Singh and Dr. Mohit Sharma have not been cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 whereas PW4 Dr. Mohit Sharma has withstood his cross examination by Sh. P.N. Singh, learned counsel for insurance co. and therefore, the testimonies of two doctors, namely, Dr. Jitender Singh and Dr. Mohit Sharma are reliable and trustworthy in respect of nature and extent of permanent disability suffered by the two injured persons.
9.18 The copy of criminal case record shows that the case FIR No. 31/12 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Shalimar Bagh in the present matter and subsequently, the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/338/471 IPC and u/s 3/181 M.V. Act was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
9.19 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable u/s 279/338/471 IPC and u/s 3/181 M.V. Act filed against R1 can also be relied upon to show that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. In the said circumstances, from the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and other record including charge sheet filed against R1, it has been clearly proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had occurred at the above said date, time and place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and thereby grievous injuries were sustained by the two victims, namely, Arman and Irshad.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 14 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
10. Issue No. (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 10.1 In view of my findings on issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1 resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges, etc. incurred by him. I shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled.
10.2 PW1/injured Mohd. Irshad deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had deposed that on 04.02.2012 at about 12.00 noon, he was riding on a motorcycle make CD Dawn bearing registration No.DL7SAX4823 along with his brother Mohd. Arman as a pillion rider from the side of Badli Village for the purpose of going to their residence at Sunder Nagari, Delhi via Outer Ring Road and upon reaching near Badli bus stand, a truck bearing registration no. HR 55P6834 coming from the side of Madhuban Chowk being driven by its driver Bikram Singh at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had hit against their motorcycle from behind. He stated that due to the case accident, he had sustained grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right and early operative side infection as well as scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over his body. He deposed that immediately after the accident, he was removed to Dr. BSA Hospital and thereafter he was admitted in GTB Hospital, Delhi on 13.02.2012 where he had undergone Open Reduction Internal Fixation(ORIF) surgery whereby plating of bones was done for management of various fractures sustained by him prior to his discharge from the hospital on 27.02.2012. He further stated that subsequently he was again Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 15 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
admitted in GTB Hospital on 12.04.2012 and was discharged therefrom on 14.04.2012. Petitioner Mohd. Irshad had further claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000 to 10,000/ per month through his occupation as a supplier of Rat and Rodant Trappers, wire meshes and iron tavas etc. However, due to the permanent disability sustained by him, he was facing financial hardship. He deposed that he was in continuous treatment from the date of accident upto the date of preparation of his evidence by way of affidavit and had averred that he had spent Rs.1,07,000/ on his treatment, Rs.50,000/ on his physiotherapy as well as on purchasing medicines but was in possession of bills and cash memos only to the tune of Rs.29,169.59p. He had further averred in his evidence by way of affidavit that he had spent a sum of Rs.30,000/ on transportation, Rs.27,000/ on special diet at the rate of Rs.150/ per day for six months whereby he had procured vitamin enriched diets, juices, milk solids, non vegetarian diet and fruits etc. for his speedy recovery and his income had got substantially decreased in the aftermath of the case accident thereby causing great financial distress to him and his family members. Besides, as per the Disability Certificate available on record, the petitioner had sustained 63% permanent disability in his right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow as a consequence of injuries suffered in the case accident. 10.3 Accordingly, in view of the nature of injuries and the extent of permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to following compensation:
11. Medical Expenses.
11.1 The petitioner has claimed to have spent a sum of Rs.1,07,000/ on his treatment and another sum of Rs.50,000/ on his physiotherapy. He has claimed to have placed on record medical bills and cash memos in sum of Rs.29,169.59 paise only. Besides, the petitioner has also claimed to have annexed other bills of medicines purchased from various chemists, diagnostic tests and Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 16 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
physiotherapy undergone by him to the tune of Rs.50,000/. However, upon scrutiny of Court record, it is evident that the petitioner has filed original medical bills for an aggregate sum of Rs.24,674/. only and he is entitled to recover the said amount as medical expenses. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.24,674/ as compensation towards medical expenses under this head.
12. Special Diet and conveyance 12.1 Petitioner Mohd. Irshad as PW1 has claimed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he had incurred a sum of Rs.27,000/ at the rate of Rs.150/ per day for six months on special diet and Rs. 30,000/ on his transportation. However, he has not supported his averment to the effect of having incurred aforementioned expenses towards special diet and conveyance by leading any documentary evidence in the form of prescription of special diet issued in his name by any doctor or medical practitioner, transport bills raised in his name and bills of purchases made towards special diet, such as, nutritional supplements etc. 12.2 In such circumstances, the requirement of special diet for recuperation of the petitioner as well as the expenses incurred by the petitioner on his special diet have to be ascertained in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the probable period for which he was required to take treatment in respect of the said injuries.
12.3 In this context, a perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.A528/12 dated 04.02.2012 which is the part of DAR reveals that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right and early operative side infection as well as scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over the body.
12.4 Moreover, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital for permanent physical disability sustained by him vide Disability Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 17 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
Certificate bearing No.156 dated 12.11.2012 wherein a finding had been given by Dr. Mohit Sharma, Head of Orthopedic Department to the effect that the petitioner had sustained 63% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. In view of the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and permanent disability suffered by him to the extent of 63% in relation to his right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner had remained under treatment for about eight months.
12.5 In view of above said discussion, injuries and fracture sustained by the petitioner and taking the probable period of treatment for about eight months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/ is granted under this head including Rs. 30,000/ each for special diet and conveyance.
13. Attendant Charges 13.1 Petitioner Irshad has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had claimed to have incurred a total sum of Rs.1,07,000/ on his medical treatment. He had further claimed to have incurred another sum of Rs.50,000/ as expenses on physiotherapy and on purchasing medicines etc. He has, however, nowhere stated either in his examination in chief or in his cross examination that he had availed the services of an attendant or had incurred any expenses towards attendant charges.
13.2 Besides, the petitioner had neither examined any witness, such as, the attendant hired by him or the representative of the agency through which the petitioner had availed the services of the attendant. In fact, there is no whisper about either the requirement of services of the attendant or about the actual engagement or hiring of the attendant, if any, by the petitioner anywhere in the evidence tendered by the petitioner by way of affidavit as well as in the documents relied upon by the petitioner.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 18 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. 13.3 Keeping in view the above said discussion as well as the fact that the
petitioner has failed to make any averment regarding hiring of services of the attendant by him either in his evidence by way of affidavit or in the documents relied upon by him, this court is not inclined to grant any compensation to the petitioner as attendant charges. Accordingly, no compensation is granted to the petitioner under the said head.
14. Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 14.1 PW1 deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had claimed that he had sustained permanent disability due to injuries suffered in the case accident. Subsequently, he was also examined by the medical board of Dr. BSA Hospital vide disability certificate bearing No.156 dated 12.11.2012 wherein a finding has been given to the effect that he had sustained 63% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow. The disability certificate in question bears seal and signatures of Sh. Jitender Singh, HOD, Orthopedic as well as signatures of the then Deputy Medical Superintendent of Dr. BSA Hospital and as such, this court is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the said certificate. Accordingly, a finding can be arrived at to the effect that the petitioner had sustained 63% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow as a consequence of the injuries suffered in the case accident. 14.2 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 19 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
14.3 In the present case, the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the tune of 63% in relation to right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
14.4 In view of the nature and extent of disability suffered by the petitioner in right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow, it appears that the petitioner must have been compelled to face certain difficulties in doing his work as a supplier of rat and rodent trappers. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 31.5 %.
14.5 Petitioner/PW1 deposed that he was earning Rs. Rs.8,000 to 10,000/ per month through his occupation as supplier of Rat and Rodent Trappers, wire Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 20 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
meshes and iron tavas etc. In his crossexamination by the learned counsel for the insurance co./R3, he had categorically admitted that he was earning Rs.200/ to Rs.250/ per day. A perusal of court record has further revealed that he has neither examined any witness to establish that he was a supplier of Rat and Rodent Trappers, wire meshes and iron tavas etc. nor has he filed his ITR on the court record so as to facilitate a finding by this Court in respect of nature of his business as well as his monthly emoluments.
14.6 Besides, the petitioner has also not filed any document on record to establish that he had undergone a skill training, if any, so as to enable this court to determine his earning capacity. Moreover, the petitioner has also not annexed any proof of his monthly household expenses in the form of his electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills or his monthly grocery bills so as to help this Court in indirectly arriving at a finding in respect of his income and monthly expenses. However, the petitioner has placed on record copy of his 7 th class report cart/marksheet Ex.PW1/2 which prima facie establishes that the petitioner had studied only upto class 7th and as such, his educational qualifications were not sufficient to enhance his earning capacity.
14.7 In view of the aforesaid circumstances and discussion, the monthly income of the petitioner at the relevant time has to be calculated as per minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the area of National Capital Territory(NCT) Delhi as on the date of occurrence of the case accident, that is, on 04.02.2012, which was Rs.6,656/ per month. The petitioner's monthly income is taken accordingly as Rs.6,656/ per month. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of his Aadhar Card, which mentions the date of birth of petitioner as 01.01.1986. The date of accident was 04.02.2012. Hence, the petitioner was aged about 26 years 01 month and 03 days at the time of accident.
15. Addition of Future Prospects.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 21 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. 15.1 In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional
Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(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 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 selfemployed 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.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 22 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied) 15.2 Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
15.3 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability at the rate of 10%. 15.4 In the case in hand, the petitioner was self employed and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 23 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. 15.5 The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case
was about 26 years and 01 month and 03 days and he was self employed. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age of 40 years at the time of his accident. 15.6 The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 6,656/ + 40% of 6,656/ which comes to Rs. 6,656/+ Rs.2,662/ = Rs.9,318/. 15.7 The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 26 years, 01 month and 03 days. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier of "17" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
15.8 The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability at Rs.5,98,774.68/ [(Rs.9,318/per month x12 months x 17 (age multiplier) x 31.5/100(functional disability)].
16. Loss of Amenities of Life.
16.1 A perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.A528/12 dated 12.11.2012 which is the part of DAR reveals that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right and early operative side infection as well as scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over his body.
16.2 Moreover, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital for permanent physical disability sustained by him vide Disability Certificate bearing No.156 dated 12.11.2012 Ex.PW4/A wherein a finding has been given by Dr. Jitender Singh, Head of Orthopedic Department to the effect Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 24 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
that the petitioner had sustained 63% permanent disability in relation to right upper limb with post traumatic stiffness in right elbow on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. In view of the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and permanent disability suffered by him to the extent of 63% in relation to his right upper limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right elbow, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have undergone unpleasant experience and faced difficult time during his treatment period of eight months.
16.3 In view of the said discussion, above mentioned grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner, his permanent disability and after considering the unpleasant period of treatment of the petitioner of about eight months, a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/ is granted under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
17. Pain and Suffering 17.1 As already discussed above, a perusal of the MLC of the petitioner bearing No.A528/12 dated 04.02.2012 which is the part of DAR reveals that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries including fracture of comminuted displaced lower end of ulna in right elbow, fracture of condyle humerus, undisplaced fracture of mid condyle humerus (right), fracture of olecrannon, fracture of coronoid right and early operative side infection as well as scratches, abrasions and minor cut injuries on all over the body. 17.2 Besides, as per the disability certificate of the petitioner bearing No.156 dated 12.11.2012, issued by Dr. BSA Hospital the petitioner had suffered 63% permanent disability in relation to right upper limb with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right elbow.
17.3 In view of the said discussion, above mentioned grievous injuries suffered by him, his permanent disability, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured immense mental agony as well as physical pain Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 25 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
and suffering during his treatment period of eight months. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/ is granted as compensation under the said head of Pain and Suffering.
18 Loss of Income 18.1 As discussed above, the monthly income of petitioner has been computed as Rs. 6,656/ p.m as per the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labouerer in NCT of Delhi at the time of accident. As per record, the probable period of treatment of petitioner has been computed to be about eight months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs. 53,248/ (Rs.6,656/x 8 months) is granted for eight months.
19. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.8,56,697/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 60,000/
3. Attendant Charges Nil
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 24,674/
5. Loss of income Rs. 53,248/
6. Compensation due to permanent Rs. 5,98,774.68/ disability/loss of earning capacity
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 60,000/ Total Rs. 8,56,696.68/ Rounded of to Rs.8,56,697/ (Rupees Eight Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven only) 19.1 In respect of the petitioner's entitlement to interest if any on the compensation payable to him, 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) held that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 26 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim DAR had been filed on 31.03.2012 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 31.03.2012 till realisation of the compensation amount.
19.2 The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
20. Liability 20.1 In the present case, though it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident at the relevant time, yet the insurance company/R3 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant and it can very well recover the said amount from R1/Driver/Bikram Singh and R2/Darshan Lal Dora i.e. owner of the offending vehicle as per rules. In facts, R3/Insurance co. are granted recovery rights against R1/driver and R2/ owner of the offending vehicle.
20.2 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., HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.8,56,697/ 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 6% 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 petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 27 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
21. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 29.07.2019 regarding his savings bank account with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned 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 beneficiary owing to his ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 21.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs.1,70,715/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.3691661790 with Central Bank of India, Dilshad Garden Branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 96 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 96 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 28 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
21.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant (s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to 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 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.
(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 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 29 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
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.
22. Relief 22.1 As discussed above, Oriental Insurance co/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 8,56,697/ with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 31.03.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at 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.
22.2 R3 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.
22.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
22.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 30 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
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 & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & 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 (02222741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} 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.
22.5 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 petitioner was also recorded on 29.07.2019. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the ld counsel for insurance co. on 29.07.2019 itself.
23. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 31 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (JASJEET KAUR)
On 31st March 2022 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 32 of35
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 04.02.2012
2. Name of injured: Irshad
3. Age of the injured: 26 years 01 months and 03 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: unskilled Wages/self employed
5. Income of the injured Rs. 6,656/
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 08 months
8. Period of hospitalization: NA
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
63 % permanent disability
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 24,674/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 30,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 30,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Nil
(v) Compensation due to permanent Rs.5,98,774.68/ disability/loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 53,248/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any N/A Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 33 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 60,000/
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
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 63% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 31.5% in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X Rs.5,98,774.68/ [(Rs.9,318/ per month x12 months x 17 %Earning capacity X Multiplier) (age multiplier) x 31.5/100(functional disability)].
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 8,56,696.68/ (Rs.8,56,697/ after rounding of)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 34 of35 Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.5,14,018.20/ award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 13,70,715.20/ (Rs. 13,70,715/ after rounding of)
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,70,715/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 12,00,000/
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. 30.04.2022 (Clause 31) (JASJEET KAUR) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
31.03.2022
Mohd. Irshad vs. Bikram & Ors. Page 35 of35