Delhi District Court
Ramji Lal (Dar) vs Arun Kumr (Fir 406/21 Ps Amb.Nagar ... on 24 April, 2025
Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
DLST010098212021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 269/2021
CNR No. DLST01-009821-2021
RAMJI LAL AND ORS. VS. ARUN KUMAR AND ORS.
FIR NO.406/2020 PS Ambedkar Nagar
1. Mr. Ramji Lal
S/o Mr. Hari Singh
R/o L-1, H.No. 1606, Gali No. 9,
Sangam Vihar, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
2. Mr. Sunil
S/o Mr. Ramji Lal
R/o L-1, H.No. 1606, Gali No. 9,
Sangam Vihar, Mehrauli,
New Delhi. ....PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Mr. Arun Kumar
S/o Mr. Chhatra Pal
R/o H.No. 589, Sector -3,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. ..DRIVER CUM OWNER
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ..INSURANCE COMPANY
Date of Institution : 13.12.2021
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 24.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 24.04.2025
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.1/22
Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
JUDGMENT:
1. These are two claims for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioners namely Ramji Lal and Sunil for the injuries suffered by them in a vehicular accident which occurred on 27.05.2020 with respect to which FIR No.406/2020 was registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar against R-1 Arun Kumar, driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. The alleged offending vehicle is insured with respondent no.2/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 26/27.05.2020 the petitioner Ramji Lal alongwith his son Sunil were coming from Okhla Subzi Market to Sangam Vihar on foot after loading vegetables on their ricksaw. When they reached at Dhingra Petrol Pump, BRT Road near Jahapanah City Forest Gate no. 2, suddenly one car bearing no. DL-12CN-8667 which was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came and hit both of them. Due to the said impact, both the injured namely Ramji lal and Sunil fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. As a result thereof, the claimant Ramji Lal suffered 48% permanent physical impairment in respect of his Both Lower Limbs and injured Sunil suffered 3% permanent physical impairment in respect of Right Lower Limb.
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.2/22Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
4. WS filed by the respondent no. 1 /driver cum owner stating that the claimants have not approached the Court with clean hands as they have not disclosed the true facts. No such accident as alleged has taken place with the car bearing no. DL-12CN-8667. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that on 27.05.2020 the respondent was driving the offending vehicle very carefully in a normal speed, obeying the traffic rules and at about 5.00 AM when he reached at Dhingra Petrol Pump Road near Jahapanha City Forest, Gate No. 2, BRT road, the claimants alongwith their Rehari suddenly came in front of his vehicle and he applied brakes and tried to save them. The said accident only occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the claimants. The vehicle of the respondent is falsely implicated by the claimants in connivance with the police officials just to get compensation from the insurance company. The vehicle of the respondent was fully insured by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no. 3001/155436802/00/000 valid from 12.09.2018 to 11.09.2021 at the time of accident.
5. No statutory defence was raised by the insurance company and legal offer was filed by counsel for the insurance company which was not accepted by the petitioners.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the claim qua the injured Sunil was settled in Lok Adalat on 12.11.2022, however the claim qua the injured Ramji Lal could not be settled.
7. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 03.05.2023 following issues were framed by my ld.
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.3/22Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
Predecessor :-
1. Whether Sh. Ramji Lal and Sunil received injuries in the road accident on 27.05.2020 at about 5.00 AM at BRT Road near Dhingra Petrol Pump, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
DL-12CN-8667 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2?.....OPP
2. to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
8. Thereafter the matter was referred to Local Commissioner for recording of evidence. Ld. Local Commissioner after recording the evidence filed his report.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 110. In a DAR matter, onus is on the petitioner to prove that he suffered injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Mr. Ramji Lal has examined himself as PW1. In his affidavit filed in evidence Ex.PW1/A, he deposed on the lines of the DAR submitting that on 26/27.05.2020 in the midnight, he alongwith his son Sunil were going to Okhla Subzi Mandi. The injured was with his Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.4/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
Rickshaw and his son namely Sunil was with his bicycle. He deposed that he alongwith his son were coming from Okhla Subzi Market to Sangam Vihar on foot after loading vegetables on their rickshaw. At about 5.00 AM on 27.05.2020 when they reached at Dhingra Petrol Pump, BRT Road, near Jahapanah City forest gate no. 2, one car bearing no. DL-12CN-8667 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and hit against the injured and his son with a great force. They both fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The public persons caught the driver at the spot. They were shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. Due to the said incident, his entire future have been diminished and he is unable to do his daily routine work. He further stated that at the time of accident, he was working as a vegetable seller and earning about Rs.18000/- per month. He tendered the following documents in support of his contentions:-
1. Ex.PW1/1 discharge summary.
2. Ex.PW1/2 treatment papers
3. Ex.PW1/3 DAR
4. Ex.PW1/4 photocopy of aadhar card of the petitioner
5. Ex.Pw1/5 medical bills
6. Ex.PW1/6 disability certificate
7. Mark A discharge summary of trauma centre.
8. Mark B photographs of injured.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Kamaldeep, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company he denied the suggestion that while his son was pushing the Rickshaw he lost control of his rickshaw and suddenly came into the lane of vehicle which resulted into the accident. He admitted that he does not have any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.18000/- per month.
12. The respondents have not examined any witnesses despite Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.5/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
opportunities being given.
FINAL ARGUMENTS :-
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the criminal record filed by the IO, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the grievous injuries to the injured by his rash and negligent driving.
14. Ld. counsel for the insurance company contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the injured.
DISCUSSION:-
15. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. The injured Ramji Lal had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. He has specifically deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from the wrong side when the accident took place. This submission of the petitioner has never been challenged by any of the respondents. No other version of accident has come on record except the one as narrated by injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle hit him finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
16. The IO has filed the chargesheet and the DAR after completion of the investigation. In this regard, reliance can be Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.6/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
18. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.7/22Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
19. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 unless proved to the contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents pertains to the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
20. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 of the M V Act.
21. The accident itself is not disputed. The police authorities were promptly involved and criminal law was set into motion. The respondent no. 1/Driver was charge-sheeted for rash and negligent driving on a public way thereby causing serious injuries to victims. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has clearly deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.8/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
driving it rashly and negligently. He has narrated the manner in which the accident has taken place. His deposition on this fact has gone unrebutted by respondent no. 1.
22. As observed above, it was the respondent no. 1/ driver of the aforesaid vehicle who was a material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioner or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioner is unrebutted and un-controverted. The respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication. Insurance company also has not called the respondent no.1 or the IO to prove its case on the manner of accident. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
23. The damages on the offending vehicle were never been explained by respondent no. 1. From the mechanical inspection report produced on record it is found that there were fresh Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.9/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
damages due to accidental impact on the offending vehicle which corroborate the version of the petitioner.
24. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved by preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-12CN-8667 and that the said vehicle at that time was being driven and owned by R-1 and insured with R-2. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
OPP
25. As this Tribunal has already held that it was the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle who was responsible for the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant due to his neglect while driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the grievous injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
26. As the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 so respondent no.1 is primarily liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, therefore, Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.10/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
respondent no. 2 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
27. Let the compensation be assessed which the claimant is entitled for under different heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
28. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,90,524/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.1,90,524/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
29. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain vs. Jai Kisan, FAO No.:709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present case where petitioner/injured has suffered 48% permanent physical Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.11/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
impairment in relation to his both lower limbs and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
30. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken special diet for his early recovery.
Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
31. The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident, he was working as vegetable seller and earning Rs.18000/- per month. However, the petitioner has not led any evidence on record to prove the same. Therefore, this Tribunal takes minimum wages of an un-skilled worker in Delhi which was Rs.15,310/-p.m at the time of accident as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that he might have remained out of work for about 6 months. Hence I award a sum of Rs.91,860/- (Rs.15,310/- x 6) towards loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.12/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
DISABILITY
32. The petitioner had suffered 48% disability in respect of his both lower limbs. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" :-
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle- rickshaw-puller.
The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.13/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to and relied upon an earlier decision of the Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a carpenter who suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered complete loss of his earning capacity.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:
Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.14/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.
33. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.15/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as mentioned above.
34. The petitioner was a vegetable seller. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" that in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands, the loss of one of the legs to the marginal farmer would be the end of the road in so far his earning capacity is concerned. But in case of person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of leg may not have same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to any one is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in an office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of marginal farmer or a cycle rickshaw-puller. Reference was also made of the case "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343". Looking into his physical condition, his functional disability in this particular case is taken as 30% as in my opinion though the injured can find slight difficulty for driving the vehicle but still he can do the same and various other things Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.16/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
where motion/much physical work is not required. As per the Aadhar Card, the birth year of the petitioner is 1980. The accident took place on 27.05.2020. Therefore, he was 40 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '15', the future loss of income comes to Rs.21,434/- (Rs.15,310/- + 15,310 x 40/100) x 12 x 15 x 30% = Rs.11,57,436/-. I therefore, award Rs.11,57,436/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
35. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I therefore, award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.1,90,524/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,50,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.50,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.91,860/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.11,57,436/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.1,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.17,39,820/-
===========
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.17/22
Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
RELIEF
36. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.17,39,820/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty only) to petitioner Ramji Lal as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization.
Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) is kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.30,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
37. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent no. 2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
38. The respondent no. 2 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondents
39. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH SAKET Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.18/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
40. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
41. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
• Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
• No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
• On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience. • Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.19/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2/INSURANCE COMPANY • The Respondent no.2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
• The Respondent no.2 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.20/22 Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.2.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.2 for 03.07.2025.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 27.05.2020
2) Name of the injured : Ramji lal
3) Age of the injured : 40 years
4) Nature of injury : Grievous injuries with 48% permanent disability.
Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,90,524/- ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.50,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity -
iv Loss of income Rs.91,860/-
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ---
ii Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.21/22
Ramji Lal and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Compensation on account of permanent Rs.11,57,436/-
disability
3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability 4 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,39,820/-
5 RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED : @9% per annum From the date of filing of DAR till actual realization of principal amount awarded. 6 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.8,00,000/- be kept in the form of FDRs.
7 Award amount released Amount Rs.9,39,820/- be released to the injured with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of the DAR till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
9 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured and
remaining be kept in
the form of FDRs
10 Next date for compliance of the award. 03.07.2025
Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed
by sudesh
On 24th APRIL 2025 sudesh kumar
kumar Date:
2025.04.24
15:04:14 +0530
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Petition No. : 269/2021 Page No.22/22