Delhi District Court
Afroj vs Abdul Khalid And Others on 7 February, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-005783-2017 MACT CASE No. 493/ 2017 FIR No. 177/17, PS Aman Vihar In the matter of :
Afroj S/o Mohd. Nasir R/o H No. F-99, Inder Enclave-2, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Nithari, Sultapuri C Block, North West Delhi, Delhi-110086.
.....Petitioner Vs.
1. Adul Khalid S/o Abdul Rehman, R/o H. No. H-1/11-12, Hari Enclave - 1st , Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
Permanent Address :-
Village Dotana, PS Chhata, District Mathura, U.P. ....Driver/R1
2. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.
7Th Floor, Himalya House, K G Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi ... Insurance Company/R3 Date of institution of the DAR : 03.06.2017 Date of final Arguments : 19.12.2023 Date of Decision : 07.02.2024 MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 22 Appearance (s) : Sh. A.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for R1 & R2.
Sh. A K Singh, Ld. counsel for Insurance Company J U D G M E NT /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO HC Virender Singh in FIR No. 177/2017, PS Aman Vihar, Delhi pertaining to injuries sustained by Afroj S/o Mohd. Nasir (in short, the injured) in road accident occurred on 15.02.2017.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 15.02.2017, when Afroj stood near the gate of his house, a tractor Eicher bearing registration no. HR-13-L-1656 (in short "the offending tractor") being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the injured. Due to the said impact, injured sustained injuries on his right foot. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Tomar Multispciality Hospital, Kirari, Nangloi, Delhi by his brother namely Moti Ur Rahman where his MLC was prepared vide MLC No. 028 dated 15.02.20217.
3. An FIR No. 177/2017, PS Aman Vihar, Delhi was registered U/s 279/338 & 50/177 of M V Act.
4. Respondent no. 1 & 2 have not been appearing in this case MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 22 since beginning. Respondent no. 3 has filed his written statement wherein they have admitted that vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident. However, there was invalid Driving License as the insurance of the vehicle was only in the heads of L.M.V however, the vehicle was used for commercial purposes.
ISSUES:
5. Following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 17.12.2018:
1. Whether petitioner Afroj, S/o Late Sh. Md. Najir suffered injuried in road traffic accident on 15.02.2017 at about 05:00 p.m., near H. No. C-141, Inder Enclave-2, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. tractor Eicher bearing registration no. HR-
13-L-1656 which was being driven by driver Sh. Abdul Khalid, S/o Sh. Abdul Rahman, on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW 1/1 to Ex.PW1/5, he was cross- examined on behalf of respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company and Dr. Jujhar Singh, Specialist Orthopaedic, BSA Hosptal as PW2.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
7. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has examined Sh.
Deependra Singh as R3W1 to lead its evidence.
MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 22 ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
8. I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the testimony of the witnesses, the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether petitioner Afroj, S/o Late Sh. Md. Najir suffered injuried in road traffic accident on 15.02.2017 at about 05:00 p.m., near H. No. C-141, Inder Enclave-2, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. tractor Eicher bearing registration no. HR-
13-L-1656 which was being driven by driver Sh. Abdul Khalid, S/o Sh. Abdul Rahman, on the said date, time and place ? OPP.
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 22
10. PW-1/petitioner has deposed that on 15.02.2017 at about 05:00 p.m. when he was standing near the gate of his house, he met with an accident with tractor being driven by the respondent at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner. The said tractor hit injured. Injured fell down and sustained injuries on his right foot.
11. The testimony of petitioner against the respondent is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent was present at the spot and driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained injuries.
12. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent and he has faced criminal charges of injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Besides the above, Respondent himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. R3 has lead only one witness i.e R3W1. This witness does MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 22 not have any specific knowledge about the incident. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A, the defence was taken that the tractor was attached with the trolly i.e a violation of the Insurance policy. It is stated that due to the non-compliance of the insurance policy terms, R3 is not liable to pay or recovery rights be granted to R3. Merely attaching of trolly with a tractor would not make a case of having no skill to drive the vehicle. It is not contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid Driving License. Apart from this contention, no other contention has been lead by the Insurance Company. Hence, respondents have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not guilty of rash and negligence.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
15. As the issue no. 1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 22 required to be decided.
16. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the general principals with regard to compensation in injury cases.
"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 22
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) --
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv),
(v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 22 case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability "
17. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
18. PW-1 deposed that he incurred Rs. 1,07,308/- on medical treatment of injured. All the medical documents/ bills have been relied upon by PW-1 as Ex. PW1/4(Colly). Keeping in view the nature of injury i.e. grevious injury, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 1,07,308/ under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
19. As per the MLC No. 028 dated 15.02.2017 and medical documents, injured suffered grievous injuries i.e. deformed right leg in the road traffic accident on 15.02.2017. As per the medical bills and treatment placed on record, petitioner remained has remained admitted in the Tomar Multispeciality hospital from 15.02.2017 to 22.02.2017(8 days), from 04.04.2017 to 06.04.2017(3 days) and from 16.08.2017 to 17.08.2017 (2 days) in total he has remained hospitalized for a period of about 13 days. The petitioner had to undergo four surgeries on his right foot for the purpose of debridement, multiple K-wire fixation and external fixator, skin split grafting and other surgeries. Beside this, the petitioner has also filed the medical treatment payment/bills extending upto August, 2017. The Disability Certificate Ex. PW-2/A reflects that the petitioner is MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 22 suffering from 26% Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his right knee. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by injured and duration of the treatment of him etc., an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of him treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Conveyance, attendant charges and Special Diet
20. Petitioner has suffered loss of income and incurred money on injury, medical treatment and special diet. However, he failed to place on record any corroborative material in this regard. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by him, he has visited hospital multiple times during the 6 months visit to hospital, hence, reasonably a sum of Rs. 60,000/ is awarded to the petitioner cumulatively under these heads.
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
21. Injured deposed that at the time of accident he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month in a private job. However, he has not placed on record any documentary proof regarding the fact that his monthly salary was Rs. 18,000/- and is silent about his current occupation MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 22 and income. In his cross-examination, he agreed to the fact that he has not placed on record any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month prior to accident. Thus, no document has been placed on record to prove the income of the petitioner. As such, it would be appropriate that the monthly income of petitioner be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a matriculate person in Delhi at the relevant time. In the DAR, the age of injured is mentioned as 24 years. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to an m person as on 15.02.2017 in the Delhi were Rs. 16,182/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his prolonged medical treatment, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner would not have been able to resume his work/ vocation for a period of 06 months at least. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 97,092/- (Rs. 16,182 x 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law with regard to assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 (16) SCALE As follows:
23. "13. 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 disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 22 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.
24. 14. 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 per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government 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. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if the claimant continues in government service, though he maybe awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
25. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
26.In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company (supra) the effect of permanent disability of the injured has to be assessed in order MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 22 to quantify the future loss of earnings due to disability. As per the disability certificate Ex. PW 4/1, petitioner has suffered 47% Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to right lower limb. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company argued that the petitioner himself went to the hospital for assessment of his disability without any direction from this Court. Therefore, disability certificate cannot be relied upon. Disability certificate dated 21.04.2018, Ex. PW 2/A(colly) has been issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with disability, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India.
27.Petitioner was earning his livelihood by doing private job before the accident. PW1 has deposed that petitioner could not rejoin his work and is not in condition to work again in future. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 26% Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his right foot. The above disability would definitely lower/ reduce the employability of any unskilled person and thereby hamper his earning capacity. In the absence of any material with regard to occupation of petitioner, it would be appropriate to hold that the functional disability of petitioner be assessed at 16%. This Tribunal has already held that petitioner is entitled for minimum wages as of unskilled labour amounting to Rs. 16,182/- per month at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, DAR reflects that he was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the law MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 22 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is not entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, SLP (CIVIL) 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017.
28.Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No.
1 Monthly Income of injured 16,182/-
(A)
2 Monthly loss of earning 2589.12 16% of (A)
(B)
3 Annual Loss of earning 31,069.44 (B) x 12 =
(C) (C)
4 Multiplier @ 18
5 Total Loss of earnings (D) 5,59,249.92 (C) x
18(multiplie
r) = (D)
6 Add: Future prospects 40 2,23,699.97
%
MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 22
Total : 7,82,949.89
29. (v) Loss of General Amenities and Enjoyment of Life
30.As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record i.e. disability certificate Ex. PW 2/A to establish that the petitioner is suffering from 26 % Loco Motor Disability with regard to his right lower limb. Considering the aforesaid, it is quite apparent that petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the said accident, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. Hence, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, the yearly loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life is considered to be for Rs. 50,000/- per year and the same is multiplied with the multiplier of 18. Hence, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
31.Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses 1,07,308/-
2 Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/-
3 Loss of actual earning 97,092/-
4 Loss of future earning due to disability 7,82,949.89
5 Conveyance/ Attendant charges and special 60,000/-
diet
6 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 8,00,000/-
Total 19,47,349.89
Rounded off 19,48,0000/-
MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 22
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further been pleased to reiterate the aforesaid legal position in case reported as, Shamanna & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8144/2018. The upshot of the settled legal position on the issue aforesaid is that respondent No.3/insurance company cannot shake off its liability to pay compensation merely by taking the plea that at relevant point of time, the offending vehicle was being driven by a person having no valid and effective Driving License. If the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of insured. Therefore, in view of the above, respondent No.3/insurance company is liable to pay compensation/Award amount to the claimants/petitioners with a right to recover the same from the respondents No.1 and respondent no.2 jointly and severally. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No.3/Relief
33.The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,48,000/- (Rs.
Nineteen Lacs Forty Eight Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 03.06.2017 till actual payment. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 22 shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
34.As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3 is liable to indemnify R-1 and R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum.
35. ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
36.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 19,48,000/- (Rs. Nineteen Lacs Forty MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 22 Eight Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the DAR, i.e. 03.06.2017 till the date of actual payment.
APPORTIONMENT
37. The statement of Petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 11.09.2023. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that total amount of compensation be awarded in favour of petitioner Afroj a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be immediately released to him in his MACT Account No. 520402010277238, Union Bank of India, Sector -9 Branch, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code UBIN0552046 and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,48,000/- alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
38. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(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).
(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 MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 22 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 be 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 passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
39. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in his MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
40. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
41. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 22 Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre- mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
42. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
43. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
44. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 22 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
45. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
46. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 04.03.2024.
47. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
48. Copy of the award be given to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions mentioned at serial no.41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
49.Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 22 Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini District Courts for information.
50.Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
51.Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
52.A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 07.03.2024.
53. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07th Day OF February, 2024 (SHIVAJI ANAND) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 493/2017 (FIR no. 177/2017) Afroj Vs. Abdul & Ors.
Page no. 22 of 22