Delhi District Court
Sh. Satish Kumar S/O Sh. Hardwari Lal vs Sh. Sunil Kumar S/O Sh. Banwari Lal Saini ... on 23 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.ARUN BHARDWAJ
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
II, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT NO.:178/11/10
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Hardwari Lal
R/o House No. M417, Gali No. 9, Som Bazar Road,
Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi110059.
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Saini ( Driver )
R/o Jhilo Ki Dhani, Kasim Pura
Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Ramphool S/o Sh. Ram Pratap ( Owner )
C/o Sh. Kailash Chandra R/o Singhana
Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
IInd Address:
Sh. Ram Phool Gurjer S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Gurjer
R/o Village & Post Sirohi Via Chandwari
Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan. ( Registered Owner )
3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Insurer )
Bhagwati Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur,
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And
Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 1 of Page 19
Rajasthan 302001.
.........Respondents
AND MACT NO. 184/11/10 IN THE MATTER OF Sh. Rahul Chaprana S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh R/o House No. C28 A, Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi110059.
........Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Saini ( Driver ) R/o Jhilo Ki Dhani, Kasim Pura Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Ramphool S/o Sh. Ram Pratap ( Registered Owner ) C/o Sh. Kailash Chandra R/o Singhana Teh. Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Insurer ) Bhagwati Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001.
.........Respondents
FILED ON : 26.05.2010
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And
Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 2 of Page 19
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2012
DECIDED ON : 23.02.2012
: J U D G M E N T :
1. This is a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Respondent no. 1 is the driver, Respondent no. 2 is the owner and Respondent no. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. It is stated in the claim petition that on 30.01.2010 at 11:00 p.m. petitioner was coming from Salasar Balaji, Rajasthan to his native place on a Motor Cycle bearing registration No. DL 4S AX 6263 alongwith his friend Sh.Arun Kumar Chandila.
4. A Jeep No. RJ 14 6C 0503 was coming from Chirawa which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
5. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle, the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner received grievous injuries.
6. Petitioner was admitted in Civil Hospital, Chirawa, Rajasthan and on the next day, he was admitted in BDK Hospital, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan in a precarious situation. MLC was also prepared at the said hospital.
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 3 of Page 19
7. However, as there were no proper facilities, petitioner was shifted to Khetarpal Hospital, Delhi on 31.01.2010 itself.
8. It is stated that as a result of this accident, the petitioner received injuries on left thigh and right leg and injury of right palm. Petitioner was operated on 01.02.2010 and steel rods were fitted on both left leg thigh and right leg of petitioner.
9. It is stated that he had remained admitted in the hospital from 01.02.2010 till 04.02.2010.
10. Petitioner rues that his marriage prospects are adversely affected as he is advised to move with the help of a walker only.
11. Petitioner has stated that he was working as a Computer Operator at a salary of Rs.5000/ per month and he was receiving Rs. 1000 per month as incentive.
12. It is further stated that he was a student of VIth Semester of BBA from Manipal University and could not appear in the exams held in June 2010 due to this accident.
13. To show rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle, petitioner has relied upon registration of FIR No. 15/10 under Section 279/338 of IPC at PS Bagar District Jhunjhunu, Rajastahn.
14. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.10 Lacs with interest @ 12 % per annum.
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 4 of Page 19
15. Respondent no. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte.
16. Respondent no. 3 denied all the averments made in the claim petition but admitted that the offending vehicle was insured vide policy no. 370200/31/09/6700003290 effective from 12.12.2009 to 11.12.2010.
17. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner received injuries in an accident on 30.01.2010 at about 11:00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 14 6C 0503 by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP
2. If yes, whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
18. Petitioner entered witness box as PW 1 and exhibited his Election I Card as Ex.PW 1/1, Driving License as Ex.PW 1/2, Identity Card, Roll number and marks sheets of Sikkim Manipal University as Ex.PW 1/3 to Ex.PW 1/6, Identity Card of Securitrans India Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.PW 1/7 to Ex.PW 1/8, Salary Certificate as Ex.PW 1/9, Certified copies of records from criminal case as Ex.PW 1/10 to Ex.PW 1/15, medical record of treatment at Rajasthan as Ex.PW 1/6 to Ex.PW 1/23, bills of medical treatment and medicines Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 5 of Page 19 at Khetarpal Hospital as Ex.PW 1/24 to Ex.PW 1/88, Discharge Summary of Khertapal Hospital as Ex.PW 1/89, prescription slips of Khetarpal Hospital as Ex.PW 1/90 to Ex.PW 1/93, Discharge summary of Khetarpal Hospital for admission and discharge on 11.8.2010 and 13.8.2010 respectively, OPD prescription slips as Ex.PW 1/95 to Ex.PW 1/99, conveyance charges bills as Ex.PW 1/100 to Ex.PW 1/103 and Disability Certificate as Ex.PW 1/104.
19. In his cross examination, PW 1 admitted that it was a head on collision; he has not filed any certificate of a doctor to show that he was unfit till the date of his evidence in the court; he has not filed any certificate of a doctor to show that he is advised to walk with a stick; he has not filed any document to show fees given to Sikkim University, Manipal for doing BBA Course and he has not filed any bill to show consumption of special diet worth Rs.25,000/.
20. MACT No. 184/11/10 titled as Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar was filed by claimant for recovery of damages suffered by his motor cycle which was being driven by Sh. Satish Kumar at the time of accident.
21. Case of Satish Kumar was treated as a lead case and evidence recorded in the case of Satish Kumar was also to be read in evidence for granting compensation to Sh. Rohit Chaprana as well.
22. Sh. Rahul Chaprana has claimed a compensation of Rs. Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 6 of Page 19 80,000/ with interest @ 12 % per annum for loss suffered by him due to damage of his motor cycle in the accident.
23. Insurance company/ Respondent no. 3 has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured by it at the time of accident but denied its liability on the plea that claimant should claim compensation from insurer of his motorcycle, if insured.
24. In the face of these pleadings, following issues were framed in the case of Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar :
ISSUES
1. Whether motor cycle bearing registration no. DL 4 SAX 6263 was damaged due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. RJ 14 6C 0503 by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent no.3?
OPP
2. If yes, whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
25. During his evidence, Sh.Rahul Chaprana PW 2 exhibited his driving licence as Ex.PW 2/1, Registration Certificate of his motorcycle as Ex.PW 2/2, bill of purchase of motor cycle as Ex.PW 2/3 and Estimates of repair as Ex.PW 2/4 and Ex.PW 2/5.
26. In his cross examination, he deposed that motor cycle was not insured at the time of accident. The damaged vehicle was yet to be Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 7 of Page 19 repaired and only estimates of repair were given.
27. PW 3 was Record Clerk of RML Hospital who proved disability certificate which was already exhibited as Ex.PW 1/104.
28. PW 4 was an authorised representative of employer of petitioner who deposed that petitioner was a daily wager and was removed from services due to his absence after accident.
29. PW 5 was one of the doctors who had examined petitioner and granted disability certificate. He deposed that disability of petitioner due to accident is 30 % which is permanent.
30. Counsel for petitioner tendered in evidence a certificate dated 02.02.2011 issued by Khetarpal Hospital which certified admission of petitioner in hospital on two occasions. It also concluded that petitioner is fit for all normal activities. This certificate was exhibited as Ex.PA/1 and Retail Invoice of Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd was exhibited as Ex.PA/2 as per which Rs.52,9665 were spent on the repair of the vehicle.
31. On behalf of insurance company, its Administrative Officer entered witness box as R3W1 and exhibited as Ex.R3W1/1 and Ex. R3W1/2, notices under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC addressed to owner of offending vehicle to produce original insurance policy, driving license valid on the date of accident, Route Permit and Registration Certificate of vehicle No.RJ 14 6C 0503, similar notice addressed to Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 8 of Page 19 driver of offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/3, Postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/4 to Ex.R3W1/6, Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/7, certified copy of driving licence of driver of offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/8.
32. In his cross examination, this witness deposed that the insurance policy was for a private Jeep and driving license of driver of offending vehicle was for driving LMV valid from 05.07.2004 to 04.07.2024. It was also admitted that the vehicle in question was LMV. However, he denied that driving licence was valid to drive LMV.
33. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Hardwari Lal, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Shalinee Rawat, learned counsel for insurance company.
34. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under: 35. ISSUE NO. 1 The burden to prove this issue was on petitioner.
36. The petitioner has stated that on the date of accident he was driving the vehicle with due care and caution but offending vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 14 6C 0503 was being driven rashly and negligently by violating traffic rules and regulations. It is stated that the said vehicle turned on its right suddenly and hit the motorcycle with a great force.
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 9 of Page 19
37. It is further stated that due to this heavy impact the petitioner received serious and grievous injuries.
38. Respondent no. 1 who was the best person to contradict the petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving was proceeded ex parte. No question was put to the petitioner that the offending vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently.
39. The driver of offending vehicle did not enter the witness box to prove his innocence.
40. The testimony of the petitioner has remained unchallenged. Moreover, on the complaint of petitioner FIR No. 15/10 under Section 279 and 338 of IPC was registered in PS Bagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
41. Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 279/337/338 of IPC.
42. Perusal of Ex.PW 1/17 which is Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle also shows that the accident would have been caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
43. Further, perusal of site plan which is Ex.PW 1/19 also shows that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently which resulted in grievous injuries to the petitioner.
44. Ld. Cousnel for insurance company argued that it was a case of Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 10 of Page 19 head on collision and therefore, petitioner himself was guilty of contributory negligence which resulted in accident.
45. There cannot be any thumb rule that in every head on collision accident, there is contributory negligence of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
46. There is no version available on record to show contributory negligence by the petitioner in the said accident. Applying the principles of res ipsa locquitor, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.
47. ISSUE NO. 2: In the written arguments, counsel for petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,31,000/ for cost of treatment and medicines. Second admission of the petitioner in the hospital cannot be related to injuries caused in the accident. If a sum of Rs.36,200/ is reduced from the bills compensation payable to petitioner for cost of treatment and medicines would be Rs.95,000/ which is allowed.
48. Petitioner claims that his salary was Rs.5500 per month. He claims that he had to remain out of employment due to this accident w.e.f. 30.01.2010 to 01.02.2011. He claims Rs. 66,000/ as loss of wages.
49. Admittedly, petitioner was admitted in hospital twice. Once from 31.01.2010 to 04.02.2010 and then from 11.08.2010 to 13.08.2010. However, second admission in hospital was not for treatment of injuries caused as a result of accident in question. Therefore, petitioner is given loss of wages only for six months i.e. Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 11 of Page 19 Rs. 33,000/.
49. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/ for loss of academic year as petitioner failed in 3 papers of BBA due to this accident. Reliance is placed on Ex.PW 1/4 to Ex.PW 1/6 in this regard.
50. This claim is resisted by counsel for insurance company on the ground that bills for payment of fee are not filed on record.
51. If a student fails in an examination due to poor preparations as a result of an accident, he is not only entitled for recovery of fee paid but for notional losses also for loss of an academic year which can not be measured in terms of money in real sense.
52. Therefore, as against claim of petitioner for Rs.50,000/ for loss of academic year, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs. 25,000/.
53. Petitioner has claimed conveyance charges of Rs.20,000/. Petitioner was brought from place of accident in Rajasthan to Delhi. Thereafter he made a number of visits to hospital for his treatment. Therefore, claim of Rs.20,000/ for conveyance which is supported by bills is not exaggerated and is allowed.
54. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,96,000 for loss of future earnings. He has relied upon disability certificate Ex. PW Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 12 of Page 19 1/04 in this regard.
55. Petitioner is a case of Polio Residual Paralysis left lower limb with Anemia.
56. Injuries caused as a result of accident are displaced fracture left shaft femur (upper 3rd) with displaced fracture Right Tibia Fibula 1/3rd .
57. However, second treatment of petitioner was for perilunar dislocation right which is not caused by accident in question.
58. Disability Certificate wrongly opined that pesilunate dislocation right with stiff right wrist is result of trauma and combined disability due to trauma is 30 %.
59. If Medical Board was apprised that perilunar dislocation right was not caused by accident, disability for trauma would have further reduced from 30 %.
60. Moreover, this is not a functional disability for the entire body. It is only with regard to few parts of body.
61. Functional disability of entire body would be still less lower.
62. Moreover, Exhibit PA/1 given by Khetarpal Hospital on 02.02.2011 says that 'Presently, he is found to be fit for all normal activities.'
63. If one relies upon Ex.PA/1, petitioner is not entitled to any compensation for loss of future earnings due to injuries caused by Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 13 of Page 19 this accident.
64. Furthermore, petitioner was a Computer Operator. In the event of any permanent disability to lower limbs, his loss of earnings as Computer Operator would be still less as a Computer Operator needs more of his arms than lower limbs for performance of his duties.
65. In his written arguments, petitioner has written that he was fit for duties from February, 2011. That also negates his claim for loss of future earnings due to accident in question.
66. However, Ex.PA/1 is given by an authorised representative of Khetarpal Hospital and disability certificate Ex.PW 1/104 is given by Orthopedic doctors after examination of petitioner and is therefore to be given precedence over Ex.PA/1.
67. However, in view of nature of injuries suffered by petitioner in the accident, considering his nature of job and considering Ex.PW 1/104, after excluding such permanent disability which was not caused by the accident, at most petitioner can be given benefit for loss of future earnings treating his total body disability caused by this accident as 5 %.
68. Age of petitioner on the date of accident was 24 years. The salary of the petitioner was Rs.6,000/ per month. 5 % loss of future income would be Rs. 300 per month. Multiplier applicable would be of 18. Therefore, loss of income in future due to this accident is Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 14 of Page 19 assessed at Rs.64,800/.
69. Petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.30,000/ for pain and agony. Injuries were grievous. Considering it a case of displaced fracture of left shaft femur ( upper 3rd ) with displaced fracture right tibia fibula middle 1/3rd, claim of Rs.30,000/ for pain and sufferings is not unreasonable and is allowed.
70. Petitioner has claimed Rs.20,000/ for special diet. Discharge Summary Ex.PW 1/89 prescribes high rich protein diet. It is difficult to expect bills for such diet. As special diet is prescribed by the treating doctors, petitioner is granted Rs.10,000/ for special diet.
71. Petitioner has claimed Rs.35,000/ towards future expenses for removal of rods. There is no estimate of any doctor for future treatment for removal of implants. However, it can not be ruled out that petitioner may need removal of implants in future for which he is given a compensation of Rs.10,000/ on lump sum basis.
72. Towards physiotherapy, which is prescribed as per Ex.PW 1/89, a compensation of Rs.5,000/ is allowed.
73. Lastly, petitioner has stated that due to this accident, he has become disabled and no one is ready to marry him in that condition. For loss of marriage prospects, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.20,000/ as he has suffered some permanent disability in lower Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 15 of Page 19 limbs due to the accident. Therefore, total compensation payable to petitioner would be Rs.3,12,600/.
75. Last question is liability to pay the compensation.
76. This offending vehicle was insured by respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 370200/31/09/6700003290 which was effective from 12.12.2009 to 11.12.2010. Same is Ex.R3W1/7. This policy is a private car policy. Insured vehicle is Mahindra Jeep. Driving License of the offending vehicle is Ex.R3W1/8. The said driver was licensed to drive a motorcycle with gear and LMV from 5.7.2004 to 4.7.2024 and he was licensed to drive LTV from 31.01.2006 to 30.01.2009. The Administrative Officer of Insurance Company, R3W1 admitted that insurance policy was for a private jeep. He admitted that driving licence of driver was valid for driving LMV from 05.07.2004 to 04.07.2024. He admitted that the offending vehicle was LMV. Yet he denied that the driving license is valid for driving LMV.
77. There is no justification for R3W1 to deny that the driving license was not valid to drive offending vehicle.
78. Therefore, objection of insurance company regarding invalid driving license of the driver is rejected.
79. Insurance company has raised an objection that the vehicle was not having any permit. But the vehicle was a private vehicle and Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 16 of Page 19 there was no need for a permit. In case, there was any need for a permit, insurance company has failed to prove that there was no permit. It is the liability of insurance company to prove breach of insurance policy which the insurance company has failed to prove.
80. In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Bhikhari Yadav : MAC APP No. 727/11 dated 3.1.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that where the Insurance company fails to prove that the license was fake or the vehicle was not having required permit, it cannot be absolved of its liability. In para no. 18, it was held as under:
"Turning to the second of link of argument i.e. issuance of permit to ply vehicle No. DL 1G2715 on the date of the accident, the appellant Insurance company did not summon any record from the relevant office of the Delhi Transport Authority that on the date of the accident, the vehicle did not have any permit to ply on the road. Hence again, the insurance company failed to discharge the onus that there was breach of the condition of policy in this regard."
81. Therefore, it is held that it is insurance company who will pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 26.5.2010.
82. Let compensation be deposited within 30 days under intimation to petitioner by Registered Post.
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 17 of Page 19
83. File be consigned to record room.
84. Next claim of Sh. Rahul Chaprana which is MACT No. 184/11/10 is taken up for consideration.
85. Said claimant had entered witness box as PW 2. Registration certificate of damaged motor cycle was exhibited as Ex.PW 2/2. It was purchased for Rs.77,372/ on 21.4.2008 as per Ex.PW 2/3. Estimate of Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd for Rs.61,532/ dated 04.10.2010 is Ex.PW 2/4 and Ex.PW 2/5. PW 2 deposed on 01.02.2011 that he has filed estimates only as the vehicle was yet to be repaired. However, on 24.02.2011, counsel for petitioner tendered Retail Invoice dated 21.02.2011 as Ex.PA /2 issued by Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd for Rs.52,966 to show that the damaged vehicle was got repaired at the cost of Rs.52,966/.
86. Mechanical inspection report of damaged vehicle is Ex.PW 1/18. It shows that (i) Mudguard front was bent (ii) Silencer was damaged (iii) Steering is broken (iv) Petrol Tank is damaged (v) Horn is not working and (vi) leg guard is damaged.
87. The above shows that the vehicle had suffered extensive damage. Although, petitioner has not examined any witness from M/s Lamba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. but the Retail Invoice given by said workshop was exhibited during the inquiry as Ex.P A/1 which shows that the vehicle in question was got repaired by the petitioner by Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 18 of Page 19 incurring a sum of Rs.58,867/.
88. Therefore, claim of Sh. Rahul Chaprana is allowed for a sum of Rs.58,867/.
89. Let this compensation be deposited by insurance company within 30 days with interest @ 7.5. % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition which is 26.5.2010.
90. CONCLUSION:
Claim petition of Sh. Satish Kumar in MACT No. 178/11/10 is allowed and a compensation of Rs.3,12,600/ with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition is allowed and claim petition of Sh. Rahul Chaprana in MACT No. 184/11/10 is allowed and a compensation of Rs.58,867/ with interest @ 7.5 % per annum is allowed.
91. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court.
On the 23rd Day of February, 2012 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 19 of Page 19 MACT No. 184/11/10 Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
23.2.2012 Present: None.
Vide separate order, present claim petition as well as the claim petition bearing No. MACT No. 178/11/10 titled as Sh.Satish Kumar Vs. Sh. Sunil Kumar and Ors. are allowed.
In the present claim petition of Sh. Rahul Chaprana in MACT No. 184/11/10 a compensation of Rs.58,867/ alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 26.5.2010 till its realization is granted.
In another claim petition, Sh. Satish Kumar is awarded a compensation of Rs.3,12,600/ alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 26.5.2010 till its realization is granted.
The entire compensation shall be paid by Respondent no. 3/ Insurance company.
Copy of the award be supplied to all the parties dasti.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(ARUN BHARDWAJ) MACT2 (South West & Airport) Dwarka, New Delhi 23.2.2012 Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 20 of Page 19 MACT No. 178/11/10 Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
23.2.2012 Present: None.
Vide separate order, present claim petition as well as the claim petition bearing No. MACT No. 184/11/10 titled as Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sh. Sunil Kumar and Ors. are allowed.
In the present claim petition, Sh. Satish Kumar is awarded a compensation of Rs.3,12,600/ alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 26.5.2010 till its realization is granted.
In another claim petition of Sh. Rahul Chaprana in MACT No. 184/11/10 a compensation of Rs.58,867/ alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 26.5.2010 till its realization is granted.
The entire compensation shall be paid by Respondent no. 3/ Insurance company.
Copy of the award be supplied to all the parties dasti.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(ARUN BHARDWAJ) MACT2 (South West & Airport) Dwarka, New Delhi 23.2.2012 Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 21 of Page 19 Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 22 of Page 19 Satish Kumar Vs. Sunil Kumar, And Rahul Chaprana Vs. Sunil Kumar Page No. 23 of Page 19