Delhi District Court
Dinesh Khatri vs Jarnail Singh on 13 March, 2024
MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 414/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-008888-2021
Sh. Dinesh Khatri,
S/o Sh. Inder Singh,
R/o H.No. 437,
VPO Bankner,
Main Bus Stand Wali Gali,
Village Bankner,
Narela, Delhi.
(Injured) ..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Jarnail Singh,
S/o Sh. Darshan Singh,
R/o. VPO Kotla,
PS. Adampur,
District Jalandhar,
Punjab.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Baljinder Singh,
S/o Sh. Darshan Singh,
R/o VPO Kotla,
PS. Adampur,
District Jalandhar,
Punjab.
(Registered owner)
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having Branch office at:-
315, 3rd Floor,
Aggarwal City Mall,
Block AD, Pitampura,
Delhi.
(Insurer) .......Respondents
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 Date of Institution : 03.12.2021 Date of Arguments : 13.03.2024 Date of Award : 13.03.2024 APPEARANCES:-
Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. None for driver and owner.
Ms. Esha Verma, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner aged about 28 years is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 784/21 U/s 279/338 IPC registered at PS. Alipur, with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 17.09.2021 at about 10:00 pm at Khampur Red Light, GTK Road, Delhi, involving Taxi bearing registration no. PB01A-8431 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. According to DAR, on 17.09.2021, the petitioner was proceeding towards Narela side from Khampur Village side by his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL11-SZ-3409. At about 10:00 PM, when he reached at GTK Road, Khampur Red Light, Road leading from Singhu Border side towards Mukarba Chowk side and when he was crossing the chowk then in the meantime, one car bearing registration no.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 PB01A-8431 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from Singhu Border side and hit the aforesaid motorcycle of petitioner as a result thereof, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi by PCR Van. Police recorded his statement and lodged the FIR No. 784/21, u/s. 278/338 IPC at PS. Alipur. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Future ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have failed to file their written statements despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
4. Respondent no.3 i.e. insurance company filed its written statement denying the involvement of the offending vehicle. No statutory defence was raised by the insurance company in their reply.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 13.05.2022 passed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Dinesh Kumar suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 17.09.2021 at 22:00:00 hrs at Khampur Red Light, GTK Road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Sh. Jarnail Singh who was driving Taxi bearing registration no. PB01A-8431, owned by Sh. Bljinder Singh and insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.?OPP.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner has examined six witnesses that is PW1 the petitioner himself, PW2 Shri Hardeep Singh, Medical Record Technician from Safdarjung Hospital, PW3 Ms. Nutan, MRD from Mangalam Medical and Surgical Centre, PW4 Ms. Purnima Rana, Principal Associate Rehabilitation Services, M/s Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., PW5 Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Mandi Supervisor from APMC Azadpur and PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Specialist Orthopaedic, SRHC Hospital. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence and respondent's evidence was closed vide order dated 28.04.2023.
7. Final arguments were addressed by respective counsels. The claim petition, including the evidence by the parties carefully perused. All the documents and material relied upon considered. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. The onus to prove the said issue was placed on the petitioner. To prove the said issue, petitioner examined himself as PW1. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Permanent Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/1
2. Original treatment papers including Ex. PW1/2(colly) Discharge Slips of Safdarjung Hospital and Mangalam & Surgical Centred & OPD Card
3. List/Chart of medical bills Ex. PW1/3(colly)
4. Original medical bills and receipts Ex. PW1/4(colly)
5. Copies of his matriculation Ex. PW1/5(colly) certificate, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card
6. Quotation of M/s. Ottobock Health Ex. PW1/6 Care India Pvt. Ltd of artificial leg @ Rs. 2,11,785/-
7. Quotation by M/s. Ottobock Health Ex. PW1/7 Card India Pvt. Ltd., for estimated life of artificial limb
8. Copies of Membership Certificate, Ex. PW1/8(colly) issued Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil Defence, Raja Garden
9. Attested copies of bank account Ex. PW1/9
10. Copy of his driving licence Ex. PW1/10 11. DAR Ex. PW1/11
9. His affidavit in evidence is reiteration of the facts as mentioned in the petition. In his cross examination by Ld. counsel for insurance company, he stated that he is 10th class passed and knows Hindi. He stated that he can read little English and had joined Delhi civil defence job in the year 2006 on daily wages and the said job was of contractual nature. He further stated that the tenure was of three years and the job was renewable after three years which was lastly renewed in 2019. He stated that the timings of his job was from 7:30 AM till 2:30 PM and there were three shifts of duty in a day, and he could have been called in any of the shifts. He said that on the day of accident he was on leave as he had gone to meet his Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 relative who was sick. He stated that he did not know the day of the accident but the date was 17.09.2021. He further stated that on the day of accident, he was travelling alone on the motorcycle and there was traffic signal on the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had jumped the red light. He volunteered that at the time of accident, the traffic signal was green for him but red for the offending vehicle which had come from Singhu Border side and was proceeding towards Mukarba Chowk side. He stated that the speed of his motorcycle was about 5 kmph and speed of the offending vehicle was 70 to 80 kmph at the time of accident. He further stated that the back portion of his motorcycle was hit by offending vehicle. He stated that he was conscious after the accident and the crowd had gathered at the spot who had caught hold of the driver and the offending vehicle. He stated that only driver of offending vehicle was present in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He further stated that after the accident, he fell on his right side and PCR Van had taken him to the hospital. He further stated that he did not know the name of the PCR caller. He denied the suggestion that offending vehicle did not cause the accident.
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondent i.e. insurance company could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against respondent no.1. Moreover, FIR No. 784/21(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/11 colly) is shown to have been registered on the statement of petitioner himself. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant/petitioner has disclosed therein the same Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by him as PW1 in his evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW1 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
11. As noted above, FIR No. 784/21 (supra) was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet (which are part of criminal case record) would show that FIR was registered on 18.09.2021 (accident being caused on 17.09.2021 at about 10:00 PM). Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondents and / or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner.
12. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Jarnail Singh has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
13. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LX-0961 by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
14. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of criminal case record) of injured prepared at SRHC Hospital, he had been taken to SRHC Hospital on 17.09.2021 at 10:33 PM with alleged history of RTA. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 17.09.2021 at about 10:00 pm at Khampur Red Light, GTK Road, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 of offending vehicle respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
17. It has been duly established that petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 17.09.2021 at 22:00:00 hrs at Khampur Red Light, GTK Road, Delhi, as per his MLC and treatment record duly proved, in the said road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver.
18. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
19. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
21. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. PW1 Sh. Dinesh Khatri i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi by PCR Van and therefter, on the next day i.e. 18.09.2021, he was shifted to Safdarjang Hospital and discharged on 27.09.2021. He further deposed that during the period of admission at Safdarjang Hospital, K-wires fixation in 2 nd ,3rd , 4th and 5th metatarsals bones were done and thereafter, amputation of his right leg below knee was done. He further deposed that thereafter, he visited in the OPD of Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi and Mangalam Medical & Surgical Centre at Main Bawana Road, Pooth Khurd, Near Section - 35, Rohini, Delhi till 15.10.2021 for further treatment. He deposed that on 15.10.2021, he was again admitted in Mangalam Medical & Surgical Centre and was discharged on 17.10.2021 and during his admission in the said hospital, revised amputation of right below knee stump was done. He further deposed that thereafter, he visited in the OPD of Mangalam Medical & Surgical Centre for about 40 to 50 times for regular checkup. He further deposed that he had sustained serious/grievous injuries in the accident and he had also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% in relation to his right lower limb. He further deposed that he had spent more than Rs. 70,000/- on his medical treatment. The petitioner has relied upon original medical bills of Rs. 63,197/- as per list of medical bills exhibited as Ex. PW1/3(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that he had filed false and fabricated medical bills. He further denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 70,000/- on his medical treatment. He was not cross-examined by driver and owner.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
23. It is not out of place to mention that the respondents more particularly insurance company have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills of Rs. 63,197/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 63,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. Injured namely Sh. Dinesh Khatri (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he was doing service with Delhi Civil Defence on contract basis and he was getting Rs. 22,678/- per month (Rs. 810/- per day). He further deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not resume his work from the date of accident till the date of recording of his testimony in this court i.e. 20.09.2022 as he was unable to walk. During his cross- examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was 10 th pass. He further deposed that he had joined Delhi Civil Defence Job in the year 2006. He further deposed that he was working on daily wages and job was of contractual nature. He further deposed that the tenure of contractual job was three years and the same gets renewed after three years and lastly, it was renewed in the year 2019. He deposed that the timings of his job was from 7:30 AM till 2:30 PM. He further deposed that there were three shifts of duty in a day and he could have been called in any of the shifts. He deposed that on the date of accident, he was on leave. He deposed that he was drawing salary of Rs. 22,800/- per month at the time of accident.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
25. PW2 Sh. Hardeep Singh, Medical Record Technician, Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, produced medical treatment record in respect of patient/petitioner Dinesh and testified that said patient was admitted in their hospital on 18.09.2021 and was discharged on 27.09.2021. He exhibited the entire treatment record as Ex. PW2/A(colly). During his cross- examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the case.
26. PW3 Ms. Nutan, MRD Incharge, Mangalam Medical & Surgical Centre, Pooth Khurd, Delhi, produced medical treatment record in respect of patient/petitioner Dinesh and testified that said patient was admitted in their hospital on 15.10.2021 and was discharged on 17.10.2021. He deposed that original discharge summary was handed over to the patient at the time of discharge which was already Ex. PW1/2 and testified that the same was correct. He exhibited the attested copies of case sheet as Ex. PW3/1(colly). He had also produced the attested copies of Bill No. 2134 dated 17.10.2021 for Rs. 28,000/- and its payment receipts exhibited as Ex. PW3/2(colly). He further deposed that their hospital had received the full payment of Rs. 28,000/- from patient Dinesh. He further deposed that he had seen the document already Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4 and stated that the same were issued by their hospital. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the case. He further deposed that he had been working in the said hospital for the last four years. He deposed that as per their record, the patient had came on 15.10.2021 when he was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that earlier also, he used to visit in the hospital but the OPD papers were handed over to patient after his examination, therefore, he Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 could not say on which dates he visited their hospital and the mode of payment was cash.
27. Apart from the aforesaid documents produced by PW2 & PW3, the petitioner has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the period upto which he had received the medical treatment. Nevertheless, it has been established on record that the petitioner had suffered permanent physical impairment to the extent of 60% in relation to his right lower limb, in view of disability certificate dated 31.05.2022 which is Ex. PW1/1 and in view of the testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta.
28. The medical treatment record (Ex. PW2/A colly) in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that he had suffered grievous injuries i.e. open Grd III with fracture right multiple MT with dislocation of the talonavicular with absent distal pulse. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 60% in relation to his right lower limb and there was below knee amputation of right leg. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and in view of ocular testimonies of the witnesses and his medical treatment record available on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of one year or so.
29. In order to prove his employment and income, petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Mandi Supervisor, APMC, Azadpur, Delhi who produced the record in respect of Dinesh Khatri and deposed that he was a Civil Defence volunteer and was deputed through O/o Dy. Commissioner (North) and he was engaged on daily duty allowance. He Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 further deposed that as per record, their office was paying him Rs. 782/- per day which includes Rs. 742/- plus Rs. 40/- per day being conveyance allowance, as per order of Directorate of Civil Defence, GNCT of Delhi bearing F.No. TA.32(20)/CD/2011-12/1752-1796, dated 07.07.2021, copy of which was Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that the daily duty allowance of Sh. Dinesh Khatri was transferred in his bank account through RTGS from their bank. He also produced the attested photocopies of Daily Duty Allowance paid to Dinesh Khatri from April 2021 to September 2021 and the same were Ex. PW5/C(colly). He had also produced self attested photocopies of attendance sheet w.e.f. April 2021 to September 2021 which were Ex. PW5/D(colly). He deposed that he had also produced copy of requisition letter sent by their office to DM office, thereby calling the Civil Defence Volunteers, which are Ex. PW5/E(colly). At the time of examination of PW5, Court has raised pertinent questions to determine the truth of employment put forward by petitioner/injured, with the questions, which are reproduced hereunder:-
Court Question: Do you have any charter of duties which could be assigned to Civil Defence Volunteer by your department?
Ans. No, they could be assigned any miscellaneous duty as per the requirement of our office.
Court Question: What kind of duty could be assigned to Civil Defence Volunteer at APMC, Azadpur?
Ans.: Office miscellaneous duties, field duties, subordination of field staff and traffic management at APMC.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
30. He volunteered that this is not part of his authority to give details about the duties to be assigned to Civil Defence Volunteer. He deposed that the injured did not join duties after 17.09.2021 i.e. date of accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that no record with regard to the duties Civil Defence Volunteer was maintained at their office.
31. After referring to the testimonies of PW1 & PW5 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that last drawn monthly salary of injured may be taken as Rs. 22,678/- as per the document(which is part of Ex. PW5/C colly) produced by PW5 in order to calculate his loss of income as received by him in August, 2021 just one month before the date of accident.
32. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioners to establish the monthly income of injured at the time of accident. Thus, loss of dependency should be calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period.
33. As per the the documents produced by PW5, it is apparent that injured Sh. Dinesh Khatri was working as Civil Defence Volunteer and was deputed through office of Dy. Commissioner of Police. As per the documents Ex. PW5/C (colly) produced by PW5, injured had withdrawn salary of Rs. 22,678/- in the month of August 2021. The date of accident in the present case is 17.09.2021. In view of the documents produced by PW1 & PW5, I deem it fit to accept the monthly salary of injured as Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 Rs. 22,678/- per month as on the date of accident. I am fortified in my view with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case titled "Mohammed Siddique & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2020, decided on 08.01.2020. The relevant paragraphs from S.No. 16 to 18 of the aforesaid decision are reproduced as under:-
xxxxx "16. But unfortunately the High Court thought that the employer should have produced salary vouchers and other records including income tax returns, to substantiate the nature of the employment and the monthly income. On the ground that in the absence of other records, the salary certificate and the oral testimony of the employer could not be accepted, the High Court proceeded to take the minimum wages paid for the unskilled workers at the relevant point of time as the benchmark.
17. But we do not think that the approach adopted by the High court could be approved. To a specific question in cross−examination, calling upon PW−2 to produce the salary vouchers, he seems to have replied that his business establishment had been wound up and that the records are not available. This cannot be a ground for the High Court to hold that the testimony of PW−2 is unacceptable.
18. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the Court of first instance was in a better position to appreciate the oral testimony. So long as the oral testimony of PW−2 remained unshaken and hence believed by the Court of first instance, the High Court ought not to have rejected his evidence. After all, there was no allegation that Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 PW−2 was set up for the purposes of this case.
There were also no contradictions in his testimony. As against the testimony of an employer supported by a certificate issued by him, the High Court ought not to have chosen a theoretical presumption relating to the minimum wages fixed for unskilled employment. Therefore, the interference made by the High Court with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, was uncalled for.
Xxxxx
34. The petitioner has not filed any documents showing that he was advised bed rest for any specific period. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that since the petitioner has suffered amputation of his right leg (below knee) due to the injuries sustained in the present accident and he is unable to resume his work, the petitioner has suffered 100% loss of income. Here it be noted that the petitioner has suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and his case was of amputation of his right leg (below knee). Considering the nature of injuries and medical treatment documents on record , it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 12 months or so. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,72,136/-(Rs. 22,678/- X 12) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondent under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
35. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
36. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he has suffered grievous injuries and 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and there was below knee amputation of right leg due to the accident in question. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him including permanent disability suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
37. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. His treatment record would also show that he had suffered grievous injuries and 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and there was below knee amputation of right leg due to the accident in question. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
38. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and there was below knee amputation of right leg due to the accident in question. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each for conveyance and special diet and a sum of Rs.30,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
39. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same is quite evident from Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 Disability Certificate dated 31.05.2022 of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi.
40. As per the testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb in terms of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW1/1). He further deposed that the case of the petitioner was below knee amputation of right lower limb. He deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus, reassessment was not recommended. He further deposed that due to amputation/injuries sustained by the injured, he would never be able to stand and walk without support. He further deposed that injured would never be able to work as Civil Defence Volunteer. He also deposed that injured would also not be able to drive any vehicle in future. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that the members of Disability Board had considered the medical treatment record including MLC of the patient at the time of assessing his disability. He further deposed that he could not tell the functional disability of aforesaid injured in relation to whole body. He denied the suggestion that the disability suffered by the injured has no co- relation with the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. He further denied the suggestion that the disability of the aforesaid patient was not assessed by Disability Board as per the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Social Welfare & Justice or that disability certificate Ex. PW1/1 had been issued without properly examining the aforesaid patient or merely at the instance of the patient.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
41. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was working as Civil Defence Volunteer at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 60% in relation to his right lower limb and there was amputation of right lower limb(below knee), he would never be able to work as Civil Defence Volunteer as his avocation involves proper movement of his all limbs and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body. For this, he has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P State Road, Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to hold in para no. 16 as under:-
xxxx "16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%."
Xxxxx Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
42. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of insurance company that the disability of the petitioner is not that much which could amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
43. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. 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 ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) 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 (iii) whether he was prevented or 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. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less.
44. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that the petitioner was working as Civil Defence Volunteer and he has suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. PW-6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Specialist Orthopedic, SRHC Hospital has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that petitioner was a Civil Defence Volunteer at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that for any Civil Defence Volunteer, proper movement of both lower limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the amputation suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner has suffered 60% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb, which is going to adversely affect his avocation. It is relevant to mention here that PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta has categorically deposed in his evidence that due to amputation/injuries sustained by the injured, he would never be able to stand and walk without support. He also deposed that petitioner would never be able to work as Civil Defence Volunteer. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered(permanent physical impairment in relation to Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 his right lower limb and amputation of right lower limb(below knee) in the present accident, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100% towards loss of earning capacity. (Reliance placed on "Arjun & Ors., Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.", MAC Appeal No. 223/16, decided on 04.01.2018, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malti Devi & Ors., in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr, in MAC. APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors., in MAC. APP. 585/2012, decided on 28.05.2015 , decided on 28.05.2015", passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi).
45. In copy of Secondary School Examination (Ex. PW1/5) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 21.11.1992. The date of accident is 17.09.2021. In view of said document, his age was about 29 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 17 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 22,678/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 13,606.80p (Rs. 22,678/- x 60/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 38,86,102.08p (Rs. 13,606.80 x 12 x 17 x 140/100). Thus, a sum of Rs. 38,86,000/- (rounded off) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECT
46. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the chances of marriage prospect of petitioner have decreased considerably due to his permanent physical impairment. He therefore, urged that reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded to him under this head. Per contra, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that there is no evidence led on this aspect during the course of inquiry and thus, no amount of compensation should be awarded under this head.
47. After considering the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, I find substance in the submissions raised on behalf of petitioner/claimant. Petitioner is found to have sustained permanent physical impairment to the extent of 60% in relation to his right lower limb and amputation of right leg (below knee). In view of the aforesaid disability suffered by the petitioner, his chances of getting married have definitely been considerably reduced. He was aged somewhere about 29 years at the time of accident. It has been established from the testimony of PW6 that disability suffered by the injured is likely to continue throughout his life and the same was permanent in nature. Thus, compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects also deserves to be awarded in favour of petitioner. Hence, notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is awarded to him under this head(Reliance placed on case titled "Baby Nikita Kumari Vs. Parhlad Singh & Ors.", MAC. APP. 17/2016, decided on 06.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.) Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 ARTIFICIAL LIMB AND ITS MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
48. PW1 Sh. Dinesh Khatri deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he requires artificial limb due to the amputation. He further deposed that Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi deals in selling of artificial leg and the aforesaid company had issued a quotation of Rs. 2,11,785/- to him. He exhibited the copy of said estimate as Ex. PW1/6 . He further deposed that in future, the artificial leg will need regular repairs/replacements of some parts of prosthesis like change of foot/socket etc and the cost of annual maintenance is Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-per annum. He further deposed that after six years, the whole artificial limb would require replacement. He exhibited the quotation issued by Ottobock in this regard as Ex. PW1/7. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that he did not require artificial limb or that the estimate for the same was highly exaggerated.
49. Apart from the ocular testimony of PW1, the petitioner has also examined PW4 Ms. Purnima Rana who is the official from Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd, which deals in artificial limb. She produced the quotation of artificial limb for Rs. 2,11,785/- dated 23.06.2022, issued to patient Sh. Dinesh Khatri and exhibited the same as Ex. PW4/2. She has also produced the photographs of artificial limb and exhibited the same as Ex. PW4/3(colly). She further deposed that the life of artificial limb is about six years and it also requires annual maintenance which costs Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. She exhibited the certificate issued regarding life of artificial limb as Ex. PW4/4. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, she deposed that the quotation issued to the patient was Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 issued after checking his requirements and it depends upon the person and price varies accordigly.
50. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that artificial limb is to be provided to the petitioner and same is required to be replaced after every 6 years as deposed by PW4. He also contended that cost of artificial limb was Rs. 2,11,785/- as per quotation (Ex. PW4/2) given by M/s. Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. He therefore urged that appropriate compensation amount may also be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
51. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that no amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
52. After bestowing my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made on behalf of both the sides, I find substance in the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner/claimant. The condition of right lower limb of the petitioner was noticed by Claims Tribunal during the course of arguments.
53. There is another reason which persuades me to accept the contention raised on behalf of claimant. In case, the argument raised on behalf of insurance company is accepted, it would lead to injustice in the sense that the cost of artificial limb to be provided to the claimant in this case, is stated to be Rs. 2,11,785/- as per quotation of M/s. Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. and it is not one time cost, rather, said artificial Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 29 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 limb is required to be replaced after every 6 years. It goes without saying that it is a beneficial legislation enacted by our Parliament in order to compensate the victims of road accidents and to alleviate their sufferings to some extent. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that notional amount representing the cost of artificial limb required by petitioner to lead normal life, should also be awarded separately to him under this head.
54. It may be noted here that as per testimony of PW4, the life of artificial limb is about six years and it also requires annual maintenance which costs Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Presently, the age of petitioner/injured is about 31 years and the average life of a human being is about 70 years. Hence, it can be presumed that the petitioner would require replacement of artificial limb seven times during his life time and would also require to incur amount on its maintenance. After carefully perusing the deposition of PW1 & PW4 and keeping in view the fact that petitioner has suffered below knee amputation of right lower limb and consequently, he has suffered 60% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb and the installation of prosthesis would definitely minimize the sufferings of petitioner or would help him to lead normal life, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- under this head for installation of artificial limb and its maintenance.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 63,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 2,72,136/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/-
enjoyment of life Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 30 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
5. Conveyance, Special diet & Rs. 80,000/-
Attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 38,86,000/-
7. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,50,000/-
8. Artificial limb and its maintenance Rs. 17,00,000/-
expenses Total Rs. 66,01,136/-
Rounded off to Rs. 66,01,000/-
55. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
56. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award compensation of Rs. 66,01,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 03.12.2021 till the date of its realization. The petitioner shall entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum only on the amount of Rs. 49,01,000/- (excluding the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- awarded under the Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 31 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024 head of artificial limb). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
57. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 28.04.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 41780498908 with State Bank of India, Narela Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0006812 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
58. It is made clear that the entire amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- awarded under the head artificial limb shall be kept separate and the amount from the same shall be released to the petitioner only on the basis of requirement of replacement of prosthesis and its maintenance only after production of original bill and certificate of doctor in this regard by the petitioner.
59. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 32 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
(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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. 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 alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 33 of 34 MACP No. 414/21; FIR No. 784/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 13.03.2024
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
60. Respondent no. 3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the aforesaid saving bank account of petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date: 2024.03.13 15:49:56 +0300 Court on 13.03.2024 (RICHA MANCHANDA) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Dinesh Khatri Vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors. Page No. 34 of 34