Delhi District Court
Ram Saini vs Master Devinder on 30 April, 2024
MACT No. 408/12 Page 1 of36
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT NO. 408/12
CIS No. 449467/16
CNR No. No. : DLNW01-000169-2012
Sri Ram Saini (expired on 29.01.2018)
Represented by LRs
(a) Smt. Raj Rani Saini
W/o Late Sri Ram Saini
(b) Sh. Deepak Saini
(relinquished his share vide statement dated 10.08.2018 and
26.04.2024 in favour of her mother Smt. Raj Rani Saini)
S/o Late Sri Ram Saini (son)
Both R/o 2773/196, Onkar Nagar-A,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-35.
(c) Smt. Mala Saini
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar (married daughter)
R/o F-92, MB Road, Sector 4, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Vs.
1. Master Devinder s/o Sh. Manjeet Singh
R/o 3913/16, Kanhaiya Nagar, Tri
Nagar, Delhi.
....... Driver/R1
2. Manjeet Singh s/o Sh. Hukam Singh
R/o 3913/16, Kanhaiya Nagar, Tri
Nagar, Delhi. ....... Owner/R2
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd, Birla Tower, 5th Floor, 25
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 2 of36
New Delhi
........ Insurance Co./R3
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.10.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.03.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2024
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH and ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.05.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident 04.10.2012
by the investigating officer to the
Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident 04.10.2012
by the investigating officer to the
insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Not mentioned in the
section 173 Cr.P.C. before the DAR
Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 04.10.2012
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 04.10.2012
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the 04.10.2012
claimant (s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the N/A
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 3 of36
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Yes
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the 04.10.2012
Designated Officer by the
insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number Sh. S.K. Tyagi,
of the Designated Officer of the Advocate
Insurance Company.
14. Whether the designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No.
admitted the liability? If so,
whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly
computed the compensation in
accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) Legal offer not filed
to the offer of the Insurance
Company .
18. Date of the Award 30.04.2024
19. Whether the award was passed with No
the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes
directed to open saving bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 24.05.2019
were directed to open saving bank
account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar Card and the direction
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 4 of36
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) 20.09.2019 &
produced the passbook of their 07.02.2020
saving bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) Petitioner Smt. Raj
of the claimant(s) and the address Rani Saini, Savings
of the bank with IFSC Code Bank A/c no.
2024101096606, with
Canara Bank, Tri
Nagar Branch IFSC
code no.
CNRB0002024.
Petitioner Mala Saini
Savings Bank A/c no.
2024101096649, with
Canara Bank, Tri
Nagar Branch IFSC
code no.
CNRB0002024.
( Petitioner Deepak
Saini has relinquished
his share in favour of
his mother vide
statement dated
10.08.2018 and
26.04.2024)
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving Yes
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303, IFSC
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 5 of36
number, IFSC Code, name and No. SBIN0010323,
branch of the bank of the Claims SBI, Rohini Courts,
Tribunal in which the award Delhi
amount is to be
deposited/transferred. (in terms of
order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in FAO 842/2003
Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings have emanated from a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR), which was registered as MACT case No. 408/12, as filed on 04.10.2012, with reference to FIR No. 120/2012, registered at PS Keshav Puram, Delhi, for the commission of offence of causing grievous hurt, by rash and negligent driving of an Active Scooter bearing registration no. DL-4SCC-0645 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), on a public road, punishable U/s 279/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC). It is alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by minor namely Devinder Singh (hereinafter referred as driver of the offending vehicle/R1) therefore, the FIR was also registered against him for the offence under section 4/181 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as MV Act). Further, separate Kalandra under section 5/180 of M.V. Act, was registered against the father of R1 namely Manjeet Singh (hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/R2). The DAR as filed in the present matter was treated as a petition U/s 166(4) of M.V. Act, vide order dated 04.10.2012. Before, Ld. Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-II, Delhi Gate, charge sheet for the alleged commission of CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 6 of36 offence U/s 279/338 of IPC and 4/181 M.V. Act was filed against R1.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the DAR and documents of the petitioner are that on 11.05.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., when the petitioner Sri Ram Saini was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL-4SAB-8329 (hereinafter referred as victim's vehicle), towards NDPL office, to deposit electricity bill, his scooter was hit by the offending vehicle, being driven by R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without caring traffic rules. It is further mentioned that due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on head, mouth, jaw and other parts of his body. It is further alleged that he was removed to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital (hereinafter referred as BJRM Hospital) and after first aid, he was taken by his family members to Jiwan Mala Hospital, where he remain admitted from 11.05.2012 to 28.05.2012.
3. R1 and R2 failed to contest the present DAR/claim petition, by filing any written statement in their defence.
4. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred as R3), the insurer of the offending vehicle had filed its written statement, in which it is stated that there is breach of statutory terms and conditions of the policy, as at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by a minor, CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 7 of36 who was not having any driving license (herein after referred as DL). Thus, it is stated that since there is willful and intentional breach of terms and condition of the policy by the insured therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the injured.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor Court, vide order dated 15.03.2016:-
(1) Whether on 11.05.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., near Main Road, NDPL Office, Keshav Puram, Delhi, one two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL-4SCC-0645, being driven by Mst. Devinder Singh, rashly and negligently hit the scooter of petitioner bearing registration no. DL- 4SAB-8329 and thereby caused injuries to him ? OPP (2) Whether the offending vehicle was driven without valid driving license ? Onus on insurance.
(3) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (4) Relief.
6. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case, by leading evidence in support of the same.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, in CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 8 of36 which he deposed that on 11.05.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., when he was going on his two wheeler/scooter bearing registration no. DL-4SAB-8329, towards NDPL office, to deposit electricity bill, his scooter was hit by the offending vehicle, being driven by R1, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without caring traffic rules. PW1 further deposed that due to the said impact, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on head, mouth, jaw and other parts of his body. He further deposed that he was removed to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital and after first aid, he was taken by his family members to Jiwan Mala Hospital, where he remained admitted from 11.05.2012 to 28.05.2012. He further deposed that during the period of hospitalization, two major operations were conducted on him. He deposed that first operation was for head injuries, in which blood clots were removed and second operation was for the mouth and jaw injury. He deposed that there was dislocation of his jaw and doctor advised him to take only liquid diets. He further deposed that wires were affixed on his jaw and after discharge from the hospital, the doctor advised him to visit the hospital in OPD and he continued on liquid diet for a period of two months. He deposed that after two months, doctor removed wires on his jaw and after removal of the wires, doctor advised him to chew wood sticks for a period of two months. He deposed that he had taken liquid diet for a period of four months and due to the accident, he is still feeling pain in jaw, not able to take regular diet and not able to work properly. PW1 further deposed that he has no sensation in his right hand finger and he is not able to lift weight or do any work from his right hand.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 9 of36
8. PW1 further deposed that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on medical treatment, Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 50,000/- on special diet. He further deposed that at the time of accident, he was in business and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. He further deposed that he has sustained 43% disability in the accident. He further deposed that he will have to incur at least Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment, conveyance, special diet and physiotherapy in future. He further deposed that he has engaged an attendant for a period of six months w.e.f. June 2012 to November 2012 @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, to look after him. He has placed reliance on his medical treatment papers Ex. PW1/1 colly (running into 40 sheets), Medical bills Ex. PW1/2 colly (running into 7 sheets), Income tax returns (2 sheets) Ex. PW1/3. He has marked copy of permanent disability certificate issued by GB Pant Hospital as Mark A.
9. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3, wherein questions were put to him that at the time of accident, he was not having any driving license to which, he deposed that he was having a driving license but, after the accident somebody had stolen his purse, containing his driving license and he had informed the IO of the case regarding stealing of his driving license. He further deposed that since he became permanently crippled therefore, he had not applied for issuance of duplicate driving license. He admitted that he has no document to show that he has incurred Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 50,000/- on special diet and has paid Rs. 8,000/- per month to the attendant for a period of six months. He denied the suggestion that he was CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 10 of36 not earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his property business. He further denied the suggestion that there was head on collision of the victim's vehicle with the offending vehicle and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. PW2 Dr. Hukum Singh, Professor of Neuro Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, deposed that patient Sri Ram Saini is the case of head injury, due to road traffic accident, which was evaluated clinically, which revealed right side hemiparesis with dysarthria and the patient was suffering from weakness on the right side of body and difficulty in speech. He deposed that patient suffered 43% permanent disability and said disability is effecting the ability of the patient to do his work properly and in a fine manner, while using right limbs. He exhibited the copy of disability certificate as PW2/1.
11. PW2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3, wherein PW2 deposed that he has not treated the patient in question at any point of time. He admitted that in the disability certificate below 43%, it is not specifically mentioned that the disability is in relation to what part of body however, the disability is a neurological disability effecting the right side limb of the body and speech capacity of the patient and said 43% disability is in respect of the above. He further deposed that patient was having 25% disability in respect of right limb (both), 25% disability in respect of speech and when they calculate both disabilities, by applying disability calculation formula, the total CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 11 of36 functional disability qua whole body suffered by the patient is 43%.
12. In the present matter, though evidence by way of affidavit was filed by R2, however as R1 and R2 failed to file any written statement therefore, vide order dated 07.07.2017, R2 was not permitted to lead evidence and respondent's evidence qua R1 and R2 was closed.
13. R3/insurance company has led its evidence and examined Mr. Dheeraj Malik as R3W1. R3W1 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was minor with date of birth as 19.05.1996, at the time of accident. R3W1 deposed that the driver was not having valid driving license therefore, there is willful breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by R1 and R2 thus, R3 is not liable to pay anything to the petitioner. R3W1 has exhibited copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1 colly, office copy of notice U/o XII rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/2 and postal receipts Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4. R3W1 was not cross examined by either the petitioner or by R1 and R2.
14. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as addressed by Sh. Sumit Gupta Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Prakash Ahirwar, Learned counsel for R1 and R2 and Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/R3. Issue- wise findings of this Tribunal based on appreciation of the evidence, led by the parties in support of their respective versions CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 12 of36 of the case are reproduced herein below.
15. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of case, petitioner expired on 29.01.2018 and vide order dated 20.04.2018, LRs of the petitioner were impleaded as a party in the present case.
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 11.05.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., near Main Road, NDPL Office, Keshav Puram, Delhi one two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL-4SCC-0645, being driven by Mst. Devinder Singh, rashly and negligently, hit the scooter of petitioner bearing registration no. DL-4SAB-8329 and thereby caused injuries to him ? OPP
16. The onus of proving this issue on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner/ claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 is relevant, being injured. PW1 deposed that on 11.05.2012, at about 10:30 a.m., when he was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration no. DL- 4SAB-8329, towards NDPL office, to deposit electricity bill, his scooter was hit by the offending vehicle, being driven by R1, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without caring traffic rules. PW1 further deposed that due to the said impact, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on head, mouth, jaw and other parts of his body. He further deposed that he was removed to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital and after first aid, he CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 13 of36 was taken by his family members to Jiwan Mala Hospital, where he remained admitted from 11.05.2012 to 28.05.2012.
17. In the present matter, perusal of contents of DAR and FIR reveals that driver of the offending vehicle/R1 was a minor at the time of accident and thus, not having any valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. R1 and R2 both failed to file any written statement in their defence, so as to deny the allegations against R1 and R2, as contained in the FIR, chargesheet and DAR. Thus, they both deemed to have admitted that at the time of accident, R1 was a minor and he had caused the accident in question, by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently.
18. During the course of cross examination of PW1, though questions were put to PW1 by Ld. Counsel for R3, that the accident has taken place due to negligent driving of the victim's vehicle by PW1 but, PW1 denied the said suggestion. Further, question was also put to PW1, that there was head on collision between the victim's vehicle and the offending vehicle. Though, PW1 denied the said suggestion however, mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles, as annexed with the DAR reveals that there was head on collision between the victim's vehicle and the offending vehicle, as there was damage on front side of both the vehicles. But, merely because, there was head on collision between the victim's vehicle and the offending vehicle, the same does not prove that the petitioner/PW1 was negligent in driving the victim's vehicle or that R1 was not negligent in driving the CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 14 of36 offending vehicle.
19. The fact that at the relevant time, R1 was a minor and was not having a driving license to drive the offending vehicle prima facie shows that he was not having requisite experience to drive the vehicle on a public road and further, as R1 and R2 even failed to contest the present claim petition thus, they deemed to have admitted that the accident has taken place by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
20. Thus, on appreciation of evidence that has come on record, it can be safely concluded that R1 was driving the vehicle, at the time of accident and as per deposition of PW1, it stands proved that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the offending vehicle was driven without valid driving license ? Onus on insurance.
21. Onus of proving this issue is on the insurance company/R3, that R1 was not having any driving license at the time of accident. To prove the said issue, R3 has examined Mr. Dheeraj Malik as R3W1. R3W1 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was a minor, with date of birth as 19.05.1996, CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 15 of36 at the time of accident. Thus, the driver was not having valid driving license. R3W1 was not been cross examined by either R1 or by R2, so as to prove that R1 was major or having valid driving license at the time of accident. Further, in the present matter, perusal of contents of DAR and the charge sheet as filed against R1 reveals that he was minor on the date of accident, with date of birth as 19.05.1996 thus, there is no question of R1 holding any driving license at the time of accident. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the insurance company/R3 and against R1 and R2.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
22. In view of the findings of this Tribunal qua issue no. 1, regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges etc., incurred by him. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence led by the parties, including the documents of the petitioner, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner is entitled.
MEDICAL EXPENSES.
23. Perusal of the record reveals that as per DAR, after the CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 16 of36 accident, petitioner was taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital, from the spot and after first aid, his family took him to Jiwan Mala Hospital, where he remained admitted from 11.05.2012 to 28.05.2012. PW1 in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A deposed that during the hospitalization period, two major operations were conducted on him, the first operation was for the head injuries, in which blood clots were removed and second was in respect of mouth and jaw injury. PW1 further deposed that there was dislocation of his jaw and doctor advised him to take only liquid diets. He further deposed that wires were affixed on his jaw and after discharge from the hospital, doctor advised him to visit the hospital in OPD and he continued on liquid diet, for a period of two months. He deposed that after two months, doctor removed wires on his jaw and after removal of the wires, doctor advised him to chew wood sticks for a period of two months. PW1 further deposed that he had taken liquid diet for a period of four months and due to the accident, he is still feeling pain in jaw, not able to take regular diet, not able to work properly, has no sensation in his right hand finger and is not able to lift weight or do any work from his right hand. He deposed that he has spent Rs. 4 lacs on his medical treatment.
24. However, perusal of record reveals that the petitioner has annexed bills Ex. PW1/2, in the sum of Rs. 3,51,196/-, with effect from 11.05.2012 to 08.08.2012, for the treatment received by him and expenses incurred by him for purchase of medicines, towards consultation fee paid to various doctors and bills of diagnostic procedure undergone by the petitioner. Since, the CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 17 of36 petitioner has filed on record medical bills for an aggregate amount of Rs. 3,51,196/-, which are in original and do not appear to have been reimbursed from any office or insurance company. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 3,51,196/-, as compensation under this head.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
25. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he had incurred expenses on conveyance and special diet. In his affidavit, he deposed that during the hospitalization period, two major operations were conducted on him. He further deposed that he has spent Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 50,000/- on special diet. During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW1 admitted that he has no document to show that he has incurred Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 50,000/- on special diet. The petitioner has also not endeavored to prove the expenses incurred by him on special diet and conveyance, by placing on record any documentary evidence, in the form of prescription of special diet, issued in the name of the petitioner, by any doctor or dietitian, bills for purchases made by him towards special diet, such as nutritional supplements, liquid diets, protein diets, etc. or any bills towards transportation.
26. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, the requirement of special diet, need to travel to hospital, have to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 18 of36
27. In this context, a perusal of the petitioner's MLC of BJRM Hospital. annexed with the DAR reveals that the petitioner had sustained active nasal bleeding, abrasion over occipital scalp and was referred to surgery and as per disability certificate Ex. PW2/1, the petitioner sustained 43% permanent disability, in relation to his head and the same reveals right side hemiparesis with dysarthria. Further, as per his treatment papers Ex. PW1/1 and medical bills Ex. PW1/2 colly, petitioner has received treatment since 11.05.2012 till 08.08.2012. Further, as per the deposition of PW1, which was corroborated by medical treatment papers of the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered injuries on mouth and jaw. PW1 further deposed that there was dislocation of his jaw and doctor advised him to take only liquid diets. He further deposed that wires were affixed on his jaw and after discharge from the hospital, the doctor advised him to visit the hospital in OPD and he continued on liquid diet for a period of two months. PW1 deposed that after two months, doctor removed wires on his jaw and after removal of the wires, doctor advised him to chew wood sticks for a period of two months. PW1 further deposed that he had taken liquid diet for a period of four months and due to the accident, he is still feeling pain in jaw, not able to take regular diets, not able to work properly, has no sensation in his right hand finger, not able to lift weight or do any work from his right hand. Accordingly, considering the above said deposition in the light of nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the case accident, the period of treatment- cum-recuperation, in the case of the petitioner, is ascertained to be about 06 months.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 19 of36
28. Thus, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his period of treatment cum recuperation as assessed, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner was required to take some special diets, including nutrition supplements, high protein diet, liquid diet etc., for speedy recovery of the injuries sustained by him in the case accident and was required to incur expenses on travel to hospital and clinics from his residence during his treatment period. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner under this head, which includes Rs. 25,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
29. Petitioner as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that petitioner is claiming compensation towards medical attendant, as he had engaged an attendant for a period of six months w.e.f June 2012 to November 2012 @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. He had however not placed on record any document to prove payment of any amount to any attendant. Nevertheless, as the petitioner had sustained head and jaw injuries and 43% disability in the case accident therefore, in view of the factum of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have required services of a medical attendant, for his care and look after. Further, as the treatment cum recuperation period of the petitioner has already been determined to be about 6 months accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award Rs.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 20 of36
24,000/- (4000 x 6), as compensation to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability
30. A perusal of court record reveals that as per the disability certificate Ex. PW2/1, the petitioner had sustained 43% permanent disability sustained in the case accident.
31. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
32. In the light of above cited observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 21 of36 vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can have different impact on functional capacity and earning potential of an individual depending upon the nature of his job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the work of the claimant.
33. Petitioner/PW1 deposed that he had been engaged in the property business and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from the said business. As per disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 and as per evidence of PW2/Dr. Hukum Singh, the petitioner has suffered 25% disability in respect of his right limb (both) and 25 % disability in respect of speech. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that his efficiency in discharging his duties as a property dealer must have reduced after he had sustained 43% disability in relation to right limb and speech, as the same require good locomotor skills and ability to communicate. Nevertheless, in view of the observation made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above sited case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 22.5 %.
34. It has been claimed by the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his property business. He has however, not filed his bank account statement reflecting credit of his income, for the relevant period when the accident has CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 22 of36 occurred. But, the petitioner has placed on record his income tax return Ex PW1/3, for the assessment year 2009-10, in which his income is shown as Rs. 1,67,513/- per annum. Therefore, his monthly income is assessed as Rs. 13,960/- per month.
Addition of Future Prospects.
35. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 23 of36
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
36. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
37. In the case in hand, the petitioner was a self employed, having property dealer business thus, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
38. As per PAN Card of the petitioner, date of birth of the petitioner is 13.03.1951 and the accident in question had occurred on 11.05.2012, therefore the age of the injured at the time of accident was 61 years 01 months and 28 days and he was a self employed person. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would not be entitled for any addition, as at the time of accident, the petitioner was 61 years, 01 month and 28 days old (DOB- 13.03.1951).
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 24 of36
39. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 7 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 61 to 65 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 2,63,844/- [(Rs. 13,960/- per month x 12 months x 7 (age multiplier) x 22.5/100 (functional disability)].
Loss of Amenities of Life.
40. As per the medical legal examination of the petitioner conducted at Jiwan Mala Hospital, the petitioner has sustained injury on his head and jaw.
41. Further, as per the disability certificate of the petitioner bearing No. DLC/779/2015/GBPIPMER dated 08.07.2015 Ex PW2/1, the petitioner had sustained 43% permanent disability in relation to right limb (both) and speech. Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to permanent disability, sustained by him on account of having met with the case accident and therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a total sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 25 of36 PAIN AND SUFFERING
42. In the present matter, perusal of MLC of the petitioner reveals that he had sustained serious head injuries, injuries on mouth and jaw, besides other injuries on various parts of his body. Further, as per the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner/PW1, after the accident he was removed to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Jiwan Mala Hospital where, he remained admitted from 11.05.2012 to 28.05.2012 and thereafter his treatment continued till 08.08.2012. Thus, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured physical pain and mental agony during his treatment cum recuperation period, which is assessed as 6 months. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
LOSS OF INCOME
43. Petitioner had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has deposed that he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from his property business. The petitioner has filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2009-10, to prove his business income and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/3 (02 pages), as per which, his income for the said period is shown to be Rs. 1,67,513/-. In the said circumstances and discussion, the monthly income of the petitioner at the relevant time is assessed to be Rs. 13,960/- per month. Besides, the period of treatment-cum-recuperation in the case of petitioner has already CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 26 of36 been determined to be 06 months. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for loss of income for 06 months amounting to Rs. 13960 x 06 = Rs. 83,760/-).
Accordingly, the overall compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioners, thus comes to Rs. 8,72,800/- which is tabulated as under:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 /-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs 24,000 /-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 3,51,196/-
5. Loss of income Rs. 83,760/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 2,63,844/-
Total Rs. 8,72,800 /-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred only)
44. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition/DAR had been instituted on 04.10.2012 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 04.10.2012 till realisation of the CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 27 of36 compensation amount.
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
45. In the case in hand, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has statutory defence in denial to their liability that on the date of accident, R1 was not holding a valid driving license, in his name authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle. In the present matter, R1 was even charge sheeted for commission of offence U/s 4/181, for being a minor, driving a vehicle on a public road, without having a valid driving license and Kalandra was registered against R2 U/s 5/180 of M.V. Act.
46. Respondent no. 1 and 2 has failed to file written statement or any driving license on record, to prove that R1 was major or having valid driving license on the date of accident. Further, as per evidence of R3W1, in response to the notice dated 09.07.2016, both R1 and R2 failed to produce valid driving license of R1. But, being the insurer, R3/insurance company is primarily liable to indemnify the insured under section 149 (1) of M.V. Act. Since, R3 has been able to prove the statutory defence, R3 is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from R2 (registered owner)but, after paying the compensation amount to the petitioner.
47. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly in favour of petitioner CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 28 of36 and against the respondents, holding that R3 to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner, with liberty to R3 to recover the same from R2 but, after paying the compensation amount to the petitioner.
48. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 8,72,800 /- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition/DAR till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
49. The petitioner died during the pendency of the present proceedings. Accordingly, statements of LRs of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 20.09.2019 & 07.02.2020 regarding their saving banks A/c with endorsement of CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 29 of36 MACT claims SB Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. This Tribunal has heard the Ld. Counsel for LRs of petitioner regarding their financial needs and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered
50. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statements of LRs of petitioners/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, Rs. 7,00,000/- is awarded in favour of wife of deceased namely Smt Raj Rani Saini, savings bank a/c no. 2024101096606, and Rs. 1,72,800/- is awarded in favour of daughter of petitioner namely Mala Saini savings bank a/c no. 2024101096649, both accounts with Canara Bank, Tri Nagar Branch IFSC code no. CNRB0002024. It is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- be released to Smt. Raj Rani Saini and Rs. 32,800/- be released to Mala Saini in their MACT Claims in their SB A/C no. 2024101096606, and 2024101096649 respectively, both with Canara Bank, Tri Nagar Branch IFSC code no. CNRB0002024 respectively as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 30 of36 that the maximum benefits can be availed by LRs of the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 20 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and pre-mature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 31 of36
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or 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 along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
51. As discussed above, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 32 of36 Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 8,72,800/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 04.10.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
52. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
53. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 33 of36 mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022- 22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 18.09.2019. The record would show that the relevant documents including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been supplied to the learned counsel for insurance co. on 18.09.2019 itself.
54. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
SHAMA Digitally signed by
Announced in open court SHAMA GUPTA
GUPTA 13:24:00 +0530
Date: 2024.05.03
On 30th April, 2024 (SHAMA GUPTA)
PO MACT/NORTH WEST
ROHINI, DELHI.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 34 of36
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD
1.Date of accident: 11.05.2012
2. Name of injured: Sri Ram Saini
3. Age of the injured: 61 years 01 months and 28
4. Occupation of the injured: Business
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 13,960/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: 20 day
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 3,51,196/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 24,000/-
(v) Loss of Income Rs. 83,760/-
(vi) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 2,63,844/-
(vii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh
MACT No. 408/12 Page 35 of36
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships,disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning N/A capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X N/A %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 8,72,800/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 7,07,016.48/- (after rounding of Rs.
award 7,07,017/-)
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 15,79,817/-
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,32,800
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 11,47,017/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in amount to the claimant (s) terms of clause 29 of (Clause29) MCTAP CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh MACT No. 408/12 Page 36 of36
21. Next date for compliance of the 29.05.2024 award. (Clause 31) SHAMA Digitally signed by SHAMA GUPTA Date: 2024.05.03 GUPTA 13:23:44 +0530 (SHAMA GUPTA) PO MACT/NORTH WEST ROHINI, DELHI.
CIS No. 449467/16 Sri Ram Saini vs. Master Devinder Singh