Delhi District Court
Suresh Raj (Since Deceased) vs . Ravi Kumar & Anr. on 22 August, 2020
FIVE YEARS OLD MATTER
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL : PRESIDING
OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suresh Raj (since deceased) Vs. Ravi Kumar & Anr.
DAR No. 114/2015
Sh. Suresh Raj (since deceased)
represented through his Legal Representatives:-
1) Smt. Kamla Devi
W/o Late Sh. Suresh Raj
2) Ms. Kavita Pal
D/o. Late Sh. Suresh Raj
3) Sh. Satender Pal
S/o. Late Sh. Suresh Raj
All R/o. H. No. RZF-757/11,
Prithavi Raj Marg, F-Block,
Gali No.2, Raj Nagar-II,
Delhi.
......Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Ravi Kumar
S/o. Sh. Puran Lal
R/o. H. No. P-79/7, New Pinto Park,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
2. Sh. Sanjay
S/o. Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/o. T-42/2, Sanyat Line,
Sadar Bazar, New Delhi-110010.
.....Respondents
DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.1 of 19
Date of filing of DAR : 16.04.2015
Date of concluding arguments : 10.08.2020
Date of decision : 22.08.2020
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of injuries and the alleged death of one Sh. Suresh Raj in a road accident that took place on 02.01.2014, at around 11.30am, on Palam railway crossing road, near red light, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi.
2. The deceased Suresh Raj was a TSR driver and as per facts stated in the DAR, he was driving his TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RK- 3912 with two female passengers, whose identities were lateron revealed as Smt. Ram Dulari and Smt. Sharda Devi, at the time of accident and was going towards Dhaula Kuan, IOC red light when, prior to the said red light, his TSR was hit by a car coming from opposite direction. As a result thereof, deceased Suresh Raj as well two female passengers traveling in his TSR had received injuries and they all were removed to Divyaprastha Hospital, Palam with the help of some private vehicle and persons. The number of offending car was noted down by the deceased Suresh Raj himself as DL-3CAL-9737 and on the basis of statement of deceased recorded by IO, one FIR No. 06/ 14, under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. regarding the above accident.
3. During course of investigation of the case, identity of driver of above offending car was revealed as Sh. Ravi Kumar/R-1 and he was arrested by IO on the date of accident itself. The offending car was also produced by its registered owner namely Sh. Sanjay/R-2 and seized by IO on the same day. Since nature of injuries suffered by all the three injured was subsequently declared as grievous, a charge-sheet for commission of DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.2 of 19 offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC was ultimately filed against R-1 in the court of Ld. MM concerned. However, investigation revealed that the offending car was not insured at that and hence, provisions of Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act (M.V. Act) were also invoked in the said charge-sheet.
4. DAR in respect of the above accident was filed before this tribunal on 16.04.2015 and though appearance by both the respondents, as well as by their counsel Sh. Ashok Yadav, was also filed in the matter, but they had failed to file on record any reply/WS to the present DAR.
5. On perusal of records maintained by the Ahlmad of this tribunal, it has been found on inquiry that two separate DARs bearing no. 89/15 & 88/15 in respect of the claims of above two female passengers Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Ram Dulari were also filed before this tribunal and the same appear to have been disposed off as settled on 29.09.2015 & 28.09.2015 respectively as entires vide goshwara numbers 891/15 & 905/15 respectively have been found in records regarding the said DARs.
6. Vide order dated 19.08.2015 of this tribunal, the matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner Suresh Raj (since deceased) and evidence was directed to be led on the question of negligence and quantum of compensation. However, no formal issues in the matter are found to have been framed by this tribunal.
7. It has also been observed on perusal of records that on 06.10.2015, it was stated by Ld. Counsel for petitioner before this tribunal that the petitioner was still hospitalized and hence, one of the Ld. Predecessors of this tribunal had adjourned the case sine-die with liberty to petitioner to get it revived. It has also been observed on perusal of the case file that an application was then moved by petitioner for revival of the proceedings and vide order dated 03.06.2016, the proceedings in this DAR were directed to be DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.3 of 19 revived and the DAR restored back to its original position and number. It is necessary to mention here that after revival of the DAR, afresh notices to both the respondents were issued and even appearance was filed by them as well as their new Advocate Sh. Trilok Chand.
8. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.11.2016, on request of parties, the matter was also referred to the Mediation Centre, PHC, ND for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between parties, but the same could not be settled as during the course of proceedings, the petitioner had expired. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was then filed by LRs of the deceased petitioner seeking their substitution to this DAR as a party and the said application was allowed by this tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2016 and at request of son/LR of deceased petitioner, as well as of the respondents, the matter was again referred to Mediation Centre for amicable settlement. However, this time also, it could not be settled as parties did not participate in the mediation proceedings. It is further found on perusal of records that parties could not come to an amicable settlement even thereafter, though certain attempts in this regard were also made by this tribunal and the parties had been negotiating for it for a long time.
9. The LRs of deceased petitioner in support of their claim had examined only one witness Sh. Satyender Pal as PW1 on 21.02.2017 and he is son of the deceased petitioner and also LR no.3 in the memo/amended memo of parties. He tendered on record his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A and further tendered and relied upon certain documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7. PE was closed on the same day.
10. No witness on behalf of respondents was examined on record despite the fact that various opportunities to them were given for this purpose and hence, RE was ultimately closed vide order dated 31.08.2017 of this tribunal as their counsel had stated on record that he did not want to examine DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.4 of 19 any witness in defence and the matter was then fixed for final arguments.
11. On 06.02.2018, the above LR no.3 of the deceased petitioner, i.e. P-3 as per amended memo of parties, had also made a statement of on record that his share in the compensation amount may be awarded to his mother Smt. Kamal Devi/LR no.1.
12. Final arguments in this matter as advanced by Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for LRs of deceased petitioner and Sh. Trilok Chand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents were also heard by the tribunal and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment. However, since submissions were also found to have been made on behalf of petitioner that his subsequent death on 08.07.2016 was connected with injuries suffered by him in the above accident and further since there was no postmortem report of the deceased on record, vide order dated 16.10.2019 this tribunal had directed issuance of summons/notice to the MS of Safdarjung Hospital, where the deceased had been under treatment for a considerable time prior to his death, to depute any competent doctor of any of the departments of their hospital, who has been associated with treatment of the petitioner, to depose about nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and also its effect as well as the possibility of death of the injured/petitioner due to said injuries. It was further directed that the said witness shall be examined as a court witness on payment of expenses of his visit by LRs of the deceased petitioner.
13. Subsequent thereto, one Dr. Mona Lisa Behra, Medical Officer, Department of Medical Oncology, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi has also been examined as CW1 by this tribunal and she had deposed on record about the nature of treatment taken by deceased petitioner from their hospital and also the disease for which he had been under treatment.
14. Thereafter, arguments were again addressed by Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased petitioner before this tribunal in respect DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.5 of 19 of depositions made by above expert witness and also in support of the claim of LRs of deceased petitioner. However, the presence of new advocate engaged by the respondents could not be secured for hearing his further submissions despite efforts and the previous advocate of respondents on being summoned had stated that he was no more representing the respondents.
15. As stated above, it has been claimed by LRs of the deceased petitioner that he died due to injuries suffered in the above accident. Hence, the first thing which this tribunal has to decide is as to whether injuries suffered by the petitioner Suresh Raj in above accident had ultimately proved fatal for him or not.
16. On this point, it has been observed that in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the son of deceased namely Sh. Satyender Pal/PW1 is found to have made some specific depositions in this regard, while claiming that his deceased father had ultimately succumbed to injuries suffered by him on his head and other parts of the body. He is also found to have tendered on record, inter- alia, the treatment record and medical bills of his deceased father as Ex.PW1/7 (colly). The said treatment record of deceased includes one discharge summary issued by Divya Prastha Hospital and as per this document, the deceased was admitted in said hospital on the date of accident itself i.e. 02.01.2014 and was discharged on 04.01.2014. As per diagnosis of deceased given in this document, he had suffered a cut lacerated injury (CLW) on forehead and abrasions on right leg and his CT Scan Head conducted in the said hospital revealed that it was in normal limits, except for scalp haematoma for speck of free air seen in left peri orbital region and he was treated in hospital by way of conservative treatment and also some surgical management in form of primary suturing of wound done under local anesthesia. His condition had improved and he was discharged from the DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.6 of 19 hospital in satisfactory condition with an advice to follow up in OPD after two weeks.
17. One OPD consultation slip dated 09.01.2014 of the deceased is also available in the above treatment record and he was prescribed some medication on that day with further advice to come after two weeks. Though no further OPD slip of the deceased is found to be a part of the said record, but one consultation fee receipt dated 18.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.100/- of this hospital is also found to be placed on record in these documents showing that the deceased had also visited the said hospital for treatment on that day. No record of treatment of petitioner in the said hospital subsequent to the above period has been filed in evidence. However, some further treatment record of the deceased from Safdarjung Hospital and Delhi State Cancer Institutes, along with certain pathology reports of private laboratories and some medical bills/payment receipts of different hospitals and clinics, have also been brought on record as a part of the documents Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
18. As already discussed above, Dr. Mona Lisa Behra was examined as a court witness in light of the claim made by LRs of deceased petitioner that the deceased ultimately expired due to the above said injuries. As per CW1, the patient had been under treatment in Oncology department of the said hospital from 07.08.2015 to 13.06.2016 and he was a case of lung cancer with brain metasis. He was also subjected to chemotherapy (injection pacli-all) and then subsequently put on tablet Gefitinbi and on 13.06.2016, he was advised Bed Supportive Care (BSC). She has also brought on record the complete copy of treatment record/file of the patient available with them as Ex.CW1/A (colly 21 pages).
19. Further, during the course of her cross examination by this tribunal, she was also asked to go through all the treatment papers of patient on record and after perusing the same, she stated that besides their DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.7 of 19 department, the patient had also been treated in departments of Pulmonary Medicine, Neurosurgery, Radiotherapy and Rehabilitation. She was specifically asked by this tribunal to go through the discharge summary issued by Divya Prastha Hospital, which was Ex.PW1/7 (colly) on record, and to reply if the injuries suffered by patient or observations made in the said discharge summary had anything to do with the above disease of lung cancer with brain metasis and the witness had stated that the same were not related. She also stated specifically that external injury suffered by the patient as per the said document has nothing to do with lung cancer. Even the very fact that the deceased had also been under treatment from Delhi State Cancer Institute in itself is sufficient to show that deceased was suffering from lung cancer with brain metasis. The treatment record of petitioner further reveals that his condition was worsening day by day and he was extensively under treatment in different departments of Safdarjung Hospital in relation to his lung cancer ailment. As per death certificate of the deceased petitioner Ex.PW1/A, he died on 08.07.2016 and it has already been discussed in preceding paragraph that as per CW1 Dr.Mona Lisa Behra, the patient was advised Bed Supportive Care on 13.06.2016 and thus, he is found to have expired just within a month from the said date.
20. Hence, the oral evidence led on record in form of depositions of CW1 and the documents brought in evidence clearly show that death of deceased petitioner Suresh Raj was caused due to lung cancer with brain metasis, from which he had been suffering, and it was not caused due to injuries suffered by him in the above accident. Therefore, this claim for compensation payable to LRs of deceased petitioner has to be treated as an injury case only and even in such a case, the LRs of deceased are entitled only to certain amounts of expenses actually incurred or paid by them and not to amounts payable under the head 'Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.8 of 19 Sufferings & Loss of Amenities' etc. However, even compensation under these heads becomes payable only if they prove on record atleast by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by R-1.
21. When the evidence led on record is appreciated in this regard, it is found that there is only one affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW1 Sh. Satyender Pal containing his examination-in-chief and though he is found to have made some depositions in the said affidavit attributing rash and negligent driving on the part of R-1 resulting into the said accident, but admittedly, he is not an eye-witness of the accident and hence, his depositions made to this effect can be termed only as a hearsay. However, still it is an admitted case of the parties that an FIR under Section 279/337 IPC was registered regarding this accident at the local PS Delhi Cantt and a chargesheet was also ultimately filed against R-1 in the case. Copies of FIR and chargesheet of the said case, site plan of place of accident, seizure memos and mechanical inspection reports of the two vehicles involved in the accident, notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act given by IO to R-2, MLC & treatment record of the injured and arrest memo of R-1 etc. have also been filed on record of this case as a part of the DAR documents and the same have not been challanged or disputed. It is found specifically recorded in the above FIR that the TSR of deceased was hit by the offending car which came from opposite direction. The manner of accident as gathered from the above documents establishes by the requisite standards that the above accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by R-1. R-1 has also not come forward to challenge or dispute the facts stated in these documents or the case of claimants and hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.9 of 19 reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
22. Hence, even though the deceased petitioner himself could not step into the witness box prior to his death and no eye-witness of accident has also been examined on record, but still keeping in view the nature and extent of the burden of proof placed upon the deceased petitioner or his LRs, it stands proved by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident resulting into injuries on the person of petitioner was caused due to rash and negligent act of R-1 in driving the above offending car bearing registration no. DL-3CAL-9737, which at the relevant time of accident was owned by R-2 and was uninsured.
23. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, as already stated above, the claimants have failed to prove on record the fact that death of deceased Suresh Raj was as a result of injuries suffered in the above accident and hence, this claim has to be treated and decided as an injury case only and the amount of compensation is required to be assessed accordingly. However, in view of the settled law, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation under the head relating to pain and sufferings, physical or mental, after the death of deceased petitioner and also under certain other heads like loss of amenities. Hence, the compensation has to be assessed under the other traditional or customary heads for indemnification of claimants for the actual expenses borne due to the said injuries or the financial losses incurred due to the same.
As per the settled legal position, the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just' and the same should not result in any undue enrichment to the claimants. Hence, the compensation to which the claimants are held entitled, shall be under the following heads:-
(i) Medical or treatment expenses As already discussed above, PW1 has tendered on record, inter-
DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.10 of 19 alia, the original treatment related documents of his deceased father as Ex.PW1/7 (colly), which also include the original medical bills of the deceased. However, on perusal thereof, it has been found that most of the medical bills and payment receipts pertain to medical investigations and treatment undertaken by the deceased in respect of his ailment of cancer and hence, the same are not directly linked with the injuries suffered by him.
While excluding the amount of these bills and payment receipts relating to treatment of cancer taken by deceased, the claimants are held entitled to amount of the other medical bills and payment receipts, which are found totaling to a sum of Rs.22,340/- and the said amount is being granted to the claimants/LRs of deceased petitioner under this head.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings As stated above, the deceased was a TSR driver at the time of accident and as per his son/PW1, the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- pm from the same. However, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate the above claim being made by PW1. Hence, LRs of deceased are entitled to be compensated under this head as per the rates of minimum wages of skilled workers, which were Rs.9,802/- in Delhi at that time.
As already discussed above that the deceased had only suffered a cut injury on his forehead and some abrasions on his right leg and his treatment in Divya Prastha Hospital for the said injuries had continued only for a limited duration. However, still it can be presumed by this tribunal that it might have been continued for some more reasonable period and the deceased might have not been able to keep and maintain records thereof. Hence, keeping in view the nature and extent of injuries suffered by deceased and as reflected in his MLC and other treatment record of the above said hospital, the claimants are held entitled for loss of his actual earnings for a period of 3 months. Therefore, under this head, they are being granted an DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.11 of 19 amount of Rs.29,406/- (Rs.9,802/- X 3).
(iii) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges Though, the claimants have not led on record any documentary evidence to show their expenses under these heads, but on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led on record with regard to nature of injuries suffered by the deceased petitioner and the extent of duration of his treatment, this tribunal can very well take note of these requirements during the relevant period of his treatment. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- each is being awarded to the claimants towards the requirements of special diet and conveyance for the deceased and besides this, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is also awarded to them towards the attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by them during the above said period of his treatment, hospitalization and immobility.
Hence, a total amount of Rs.40,000/- is being awarded to the claimants under this head.
24. The claimants/LRs of the deceased petitioner are thus held entitled to an amount of Rs. 91,746/- only (Rs. 22,340 + 29,406 + 40,000) (Rupees Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six only) along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
25. APPORTIONMENT As already discussed above, the petitioner Suresh Raj had expired during the course of proceedings and his LRs have been brought on record by this tribunal vide order dated 24.11.2016. Claimant no.1 Smt. Kamla Devi is wife, claimant no.2 Ms. Kavita Pal is daughter and claimant no.3 Sh. Satender Pal is son of the deceased petitioner. As already stated above, the claimant no.3 had made a statement before this tribunal on 06.02.2018 DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.12 of 19 relinquishing his share of compensation in favour of his mother/claimant no.1. It has also come on record at the time of recording of statement of the claimants in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.01.2013 in MACA No.792/2006 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Pandey and Ors. that claimant no.2 was aged about 25 years and was a widow and residing with the remaining claimants. Hence, besides, the claimant no.1 being treated as a dependent upon her deceased husband, claimant no.2 being their widow daughter is also being treated as a dependent upon her deceased father at the relevant time of accident. In view of the above statement made by claimant no.3, the compensation amount is directed to be apportioned amongst claimants no.1 and 2 only and they will share it in the ratio of 80:20.
26. RELEASE Out of share of claimant no.1, 80% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the form of 8 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 8 months in succession. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings account bearing no. A/c No. 04642122005279 being maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Palam Gaon Branch, New Delhi having IFSC Code No. ORBC0100464. The remaining 20% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the said claimant.
The entire share of claimant no.2 be released to her. To facilitate deposits in the above scheme and disbursement of the awarded amount, the claimant no.1 shall also open a savings bank account in the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, if not opened earlier. However, the concerned bank shall permit the claimant no.1 to withdraw money from her above savings bank account by means of DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.13 of 19 withdrawal forms or biometric authentication.
The above disbursement to the claimants is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any.
The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account of the claimant no.1 i.e. the above account (s) of the claimant no.1 shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
The original fixed deposits be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant no.1 and the above amounts shall be released in account of the said claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the petitioner.
No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
Claimant no.1 has already produced before this tribunal his original passbook with necessary endorsements to the effect that no cheque book shall be issued to her above said account and she has also filed copy thereof on record alongwith his aadhar card and PAN card. It is directed that the concerned bank (s) shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the said claimant in future also.
27. LIABILITY As stated above, the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. Hence, R-1 being the principle tort feasor and R-2 being owner of the said vehicle and also vicariously liable for the acts of R-1 are DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.14 of 19 both being jointly and severally held liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the above award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum, by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the claimants within 30 days from today failing which they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. Respondents shall inform the claimants and their counsel through registered posts that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited by them.
28. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
29. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form VII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017.
30. The particulars of Form-V of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 02.01.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not given Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Not given company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Not given Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 16.04.2015 Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Uninsured vehicle DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.15 of 19 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 16.04.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR ......
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency DAR has been filed after 1 on the part of the Investigating Officer? If year and about 3 months of so, whether any action/direction the accident warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Uninsured vehicle Officer by the Insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance -do-
Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report -do-
within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly -do-
computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated -do-
Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of the
-do-
offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 22.08.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 06.02.2018 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.16 of 19 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 passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence 25.10.2018 along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o. H. No. RZF-757/11, Claimant(s) Prithavi Raj Marg, F-Block, Gali No.2, Raj Nagar-II, Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of the Claimant no.1 : A/c No. claimant(s) and the address of the bank 04642122005279 being with IFSC Code. maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Palam Gaon Branch, New Delhi having IFSC Code No. ORBC0100464.
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the award to Yes ascertain his/their financial condition?
31. File be consigned to Records after necessary formalities. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 28.11.2020.
Announced in the open court. (M.K. Nagpal) on 22.08.2020 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.17 of 19 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM-IVB Date of accident : 02.01.2014 Name of the injured : Suresh Raj Age of the injured : around 48 years at the time of accident Occupation of the injured : TSR driver Income of the injured : As per minimum wages Nature of injury : Grievous Medical treatment taken by the injured : Divya Prastha Hospital Period of hospitalization : 02.01.2014 to 04.01.2014 Whether any permanent disability? : NA
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 22,340.00
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000.00
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10,000.00
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 20,000.00
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 29,406.00
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical NA
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering NA
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships,disappointment,frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of
earning capacity
DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.18 of 19
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA
expectation of life span on account of
disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning relation NA
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income NA
14. Total Compensation Rs.91,746/-
15. Interest Awarded 9% p.a. from date of filing of
DAR till deposit within 30
days and 12% pa thereafter
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.44,226.60
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,35,972.60 rounded off
to
Rs. 1,36,000/-
18. Award amount released Claimant no.1: 20% of her
share
Claimant no.2 : Entire share
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs Claimant no.1: 80% of her
share
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Through bank
amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 28.11.2020
(M.K. Nagpal)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
22.08.2020
DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.19 of 19