Delhi District Court
Sh. Naresh Chander (Father Of Deceased) vs Sh. Shiv Bahadur Yadav on 23 April, 2018
MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5483/16 (Old MACP No. 112/14)
1. Sh. Naresh Chander (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Jogi Ram
2. Smt. Krishna (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Naresh Chander
Both R/o J770, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi. .......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shiv Bahadur Yadav,
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Yadav,
R/o Village Koyam,
PO. Sidodhi, PS. Fatanpur,
District Partap Garh, U.P. (Driver)
2. Sh. Shyam Lal Katana,
S/o Sh. Karam Chand,
R/o B148149, B Block,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. (Registered Owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
416421, 4th floor, Narain Manzil,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi(Insurance Co.) ........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 4548/16 (Old MACP No. 29T/13)
1. Sh. Rajesh,
S/o Sh. Hawa Singh,
R/o 402/31, Gali No. 2,
Gohana Road, Pragati Vihar,
Sonepat, Haryana. ..........Petitioners
VERSUS
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 28
MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
1. Sh. Shiv Bahadur Yadav,
S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Yadav,
R/o Village Koyam,
PO. Sidodhi, PS. Fatanpur,
District Partap Garh, U.P. (Driver)
2. Sh. Shyam Lal Katana,
S/o Sh. Karam Chand,
R/o B148149, B Block,
Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. (Registered Owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
416421, 4th floor, Narain Manzil,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi(Insurance Co.) ........Respondents
APPEARENCES
Sh. B.K. Jha, adv for petitioners/Lrs of deceased.
Sh. Manish Batra, Adv for petitioner/injured.
None for respondents no. 1 & 2.
Sh. S. K. Tyagi, adv for respondent no. 3.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both these claim
petitions with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Rustam (MACP No. 5483/16)
and grievous injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Rajesh (MACP No.
4548/16) in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 24.09.2013 at about
11:40 am at Traffic Intersection, Mahindra Park, heading towards Azad Pur,
Delhi, involving Truck bearing registration no. DL1GB7382 (alleged offending
vehicle) being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver namely Shiv
Bahadur (R1 herein).
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording evidence vide order dated 26.02.2015 passed by my Ld.
Predecessor and MACP No. 5483/16 titled as " Naresh Chander & Anr. Vs.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 28
MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
Shiv Bahadur & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the
evidence was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the
purpose of both these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to the claim petitions filed in both these cases, Rustam (since expired) alongwith injured namely Rajesh, were heading towards Sarai Peepal Thala, Delhi on motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAT4287. The motorcycle was being driven by deceased Rustam and injured Rajesh was sitting as pillion rider on it. When they reached at Traffic Intersection, Mahindra Park, heading towards Azad Pur, Delhi, one Truck bearing registration no. DL1GB 7382 which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and in zigzag manner, came and hit against motorcycle from the helper side. As a result thereof, they both fell down from the motorcycle. Rustam was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle, while Rajesh sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, where Rustam was declared brought dead. Rajesh was medically examined vide MLC No. 66273/13. FIR No. 293/13 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. Mahendra Park with regard to the accident in question.
4. It is averred in MACP No. 5483/16 that Rustam was bachelor aged about 26 years old; was working as Ward Boy and was also doing part time work of Sample Collectiion Executive and was earning Rs. 18,222/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioners are his parents. Both the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ was incurred on transportation, funeral and last rites of deceased. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest against all the respondents on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 28MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
5. It is averred in MACP No. 4548/16 that Rajesh was about 37 years old; was working as Senior Technician at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, Rohini, Delhi and was getting monthly salary of approx Rs. 22,000/ at the time of accident in question. He further averred that he had sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest against all the respondents on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
6. Respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have filed separate but identical WS in both the claim petitions, wherein they have raised preliminary objections that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle. They have claimed that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently. It is further claimed that the respondent no.1 was driving the aforesaid vehicle carefully while following the traffic rules. Alternatively, they have claimed that the aforesaid Truck was insured with respondent no. 3 as on the date of accident and thus, they are not liable to pay the compensation amount. On merits, they have simply denied the averments made in the claim petitions and have prayed for dismissal of claim petitions.
7. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has filed separate legal offers in both the claim petitions, whereby it has offered to pay compensation amount of Rs. 5,34,652/ to the petitioners/Lrs of deceased for the fatal injuries sustained by their son namely Rustam and offered a sum of Rs. 1,73,016/to the petitioner/injured Rajesh for the grievous injuries sustained by him, as full and final settlement of their respective claims raised by them. Same were not acceptable to the petitioners/injured.
8. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5483/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.09.2014 : Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
1) Whether the deceased Rustam suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 24.09.2013 at about 11:40 am at Red Light Mahendra Park, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Mahendra Park due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1 who was driving truck bearing registration no. DL1GB7382, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.
3? OPP.
2) Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPP R1 & R2
3) Whether the petitioners/Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
4) Relief.
9. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 4548/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.09.2014 :
1) Whether the petitioner/injured suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 24.09.2013 at about 11:40 am at Red Light Mahendra Park, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Mahendra Park due to rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1 who was driving truck bearing registration no. DL1GB7382, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.
3? OPP.
2) Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder
of necessary parties?OPP R1 & R2
3) Whether the petitioners/Lrs (sic
petitioner/injured) are entitled to any
compensation, if so to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
4) Relief.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 28
MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
10. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined four witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Naresh Chander(Father of deceased Rustam), PW2 Sh. Manish Kumar, proprietor of Diya Path Lab, PW3 Sh. Nandan Singh, Field Officer, Om Shiv House Keeping Services and PW1(sicPW4) Sh. Rajesh(injured in MACP No. 4548/16). Petitioners/Lrs of deceased closed their evidence on 09.03.17 and petitioner/injured Rajesh had closed his evidence on 17.08.17 through their respective counsels. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced by either of the respondents. Their RE was closed on 17.08.17 through their respective counsels.
11. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsels for the parties. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A/IV B vide order dated 09.04.2018 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 & 2 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
12. Both these issues are being taken up together as they are inter linked. For the purpose of these issues, the testimony of PW1(SicPW4) Sh. Rajesh is relevant. According to the claim set up by the petitioners, this witness was sitting as pillion rider on motorcycle no. DL8SAT4287 being driven by deceased Rustam. He is also claimed to have sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question.
13. In his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/1), he has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petitions to the effect that on 24.09.2013 at about 11:40 AM, he alongwith Rustam(since expired), were heading towards Sarai Peepal Thala, Delhi. At that time, Rustam was driving the motorcycle no. DL8SAT4287 and he was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. When they reached at traffic intersection (Red Light) at Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 Mahendra Park, which was on the road heading towards Azadpur, Delhi, the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration no. DL1GB7382 being driven by its driver Shiv Bahadur in rash, negligent and in zigzag manner, came and hit against their motorcycle from the helper side of the said truck. As a result thereof, they both fell down from the motorcycle. He further deposed that Rustam was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle and he had sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was examined vide MLC No. 66273/13. As per said MLC, he had sustained critical, grievous and life threatening injuries all over his body especially on his lower portion. Thereafter, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he underwent intensive care, including major multiple surgeries on his right knee, whereby surgical implants were embedded. He categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck no. DL1GB7382 by respondent no. 1. FIR No. 293/13 was registered at PS. Mahendra Park with regard to said accident.
He has relied upon the following documents:
Serial Description of Remarks
No. documents
1. Copy of chargesheet Ex. PW1/A
2. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/B
3. Copy of his Disability Ex.PW1/C
Certificate
4. Original medical Ex. PW1/D(colly)
certificates/prescriptions
5. Original transportation bills Ex. PW1/E(colly)
14. During his crossexamination on behalf R1 & R2, he deposed that he had been driving scooter during the days of accident. He further deposed that he was holding valid DL for driving the motorcycle and LMV. He had not seen the offending truck prior to the accident. He further deposed that he could not tell the approximate speed of the truck since it was coming from behind. He also deposed that he had stated before the criminal Court that the truck Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 was being driven in zigzag manner. He denied the suggestion that he was driving the motorcycle and not Rustam at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that in order to get the claim, he made a wrong statement before the police. The offending truck had dragged the motorcycle and had stopped in the middle of the crossing. He denied the suggestion that he had stated in the criminal Court that motorcycle was not dragged. He deposed that the accident had taken place just before the red light signal at a distance of about 23 paces backward. He denied the suggestion that the road was rough or was having path holes rather it was plain. He further denied the suggestion that the motorcycle was being driven in rough manner or in zigzag way. He also denied the suggestion that driver of the motorcycle over took the truck from wrong side in rash manner. He deposed that the accident had taken place on the left side of the road. He denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of deceased Rustam. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not crossexamine this witness on this aspect at all.
15. It is evident from the testimony of PW1(SicPW4) Sh. Rajesh that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, the testimony of this witness inspires confidence as he himelf is also shown to have sustained injuries due to the accident and FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of this witness. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of this witness during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving Truck No. DL1GB7382 in rash and negligent manner.
16. Apart from PW1(SicPW4), the respondent no. 1/driver of the alleged offending vehicle was the other material witness, who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 question took place. However, he preferred to stay away from the proceedings. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. DL1GB7382.
17. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 293/13 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. Mahendra Park with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR(which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Rajesh (injured in MACP No. 4548/16), wherein he has attributed the entire negligence on the part of driver of Truck in causing the accident in question. Furthermore, the said FIR is shown to have been registered on 24.09.2013 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of Truck No. DL1GB7382 at the instance of the petitioners.
18. The very fact that the police has filed chargesheet (Ex. PW1/A) before the Court of Magistrate claiming therein that it was due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL1GB7382 by its driver namely Shiv Bahadur/R1 (accused in State case) that the accident in question had occurred, due to which Rustam had sustained fatal injuries and Rajesh had sustained grievous injuries, also points out towards the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle on the part of respondent no. 1. The aforesaid injured Rajesh has also been cited as prosecution witness in the list of witnesses filed with the said chargesheet.
19. Not only this, copy of PM report (which is part of DAR) of deceased Rustam as available on record, would reveal that he was claimed to have sustained fatal injuries in road accident and his cause of death is opined due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries as mentioned above Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 consequent upon blunt force impact. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and could be possible in manner as alleged. The MLC (which is part of DAR) of injured Rajesh prepared at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, would further reveal that he had been removed to said hospital on 24.09.2013 at 12:45 pm with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA). It is mentioned in MLC that he had sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
20. Further, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 26.09.2013 (which is also part of DAR) of Truck No. DL1GB7382, would show fresh damages i.e. its front bumper and safety rod corner was found scratched from left side and its left front wheel tyre was also found scratched. Likewise, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 26.09.2013 (which is also part of DAR) of motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAT4287 of victims, would show that its rear body and tail light were damaged; its rear wheel guard was found bended and its right side body was also found scratched. Said documents have not been disputed by the respondents and corroborate the ocular testimony of PW Rajesh to the aforesaid extent. Moreover, the offending truck is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of seizure memo dated 24.09.13 (date of accident also being 24.09.13) (which is part of DAR).
21. There is nothing on record to show that there was any negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle of victims, so as to infer that it was a case of composite negligence. As already noted above, none of the respondents led any evidence whatsoever during the course of inquiry. The initial burden to prove issue no. 2 was upon respondents no. 1 & 2 who had raised the plea in their joint WS that the claim petition is bad for nonjoinder of registered owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. For want of any evidence being led by Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 them on this issue, it is held that the said two respondents have failed to prove this issue even on the basis of pre ponderance of probabilities.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Rustam had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner/injured Rajesh had sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on 24.09.2013 at about 11.40 am at traffic intersection (Red Light) at Mahendra Park, which was on the road heading towards Azadpur, Delhi, due to negligence on the part of driver of Truck No. DL1GB7382. Thus, both these issues are decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both these claim petitions.
ISSUE NO.3
23. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Compensation Amount in MAC Petition No. 5483/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
24. As already stated above, the petitioners in this claim petition have claimed that deceased Rustam was aged 26 years old; was working as Ward Boy and was also doing part time work of Sample Collection Executive and was earning Rs. 18,222/ per month at the time of accident in question. Both the petitioners were dependent upon the income of deceased at the time of accident in question. PW1 Sh. Naresh Chander (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) on similar lines.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents 1. Copy of his Election I Ex PW1/1 card 2. Copy of Election I card of Ex. PW1/2 petitioner no. 2 3. Copy of Election I card of Ex. PW1/3 deceased Rustam 4. Copy of PAN Card of Ex. PW1/4 deceased 5. Copy of DL of deceased Mark A 6. Copy of NCR regarding Ex. PW1/6 lost of DL of deceased 7. Copy of I card of Ex. PW1/7 deceased for Distance Education Program issued by PTU 8. Copy of I Card of Ex. PW1/8 deceased issued by Khanna Computer & Tuition Centre 9. Copy of 10th pass Ex. PW1/9(colly) marksheet and certificate of deceased 10. Copy of 12th pass Ex. PW1/10(colly) marksheet and certificate of deceased 11. Copy of marksheet of Ex. PW1/11(colly) deceased of B.Sc Medical Lab Technology for Semesters 1,2 & 3 12. Copy of handwritten Ex. PW1/12 certificate issued by International Institute of Paramedical Technology regarding bonafide student of 4 semester th 13. Copy of certificate in Ex. PW1/13 computer application Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 issued by Khanna Computer & Tuition 14. Copy of certificate of Ex. PW1/14 completion of computer course in Telly 15. Copy of certificate of Ex. PW1/15 award for professional diploma in Computer Application & Programming issued by FTech 16. Copy of certificate of Ex. PW1/16 deceased of training of Home Guard 17. Copy of certificate of first Ex. PW1/17 aid training issued by St. John Ambulance Associate of deceased 18. Copy of experience Ex. PW1/18 certificate issued to deceased by Tyagi Hospital & Maternity Centre 19. Original salarycum Ex. PW1/19 employment certificate of Diya Path Lab 20. Original salarycum Ex. PW1/20 employment certificate of Om Shiv House Keeping Services 21. Original salarycum Ex. PW1/21 employment certificate showing part time job program with Diya Path Lab
25. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he was government servant in Ministry of Defence and was working as Mazdoor. He admitted that he borne the expenses of his household and day to day life. He volunteered that his son was also contributing towards the family for expenses for day to day life. The duty hours of his son were from 11 am to 7 pm and he Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 used to leave house for duty at about 7 am and used to return back at home after 9:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that his son was not working in Om Shiv House Keeping Services and was not earning Rs. 7,722/ per month. He further denied the suggestion that his son was not working in Diya Path Lab as Sample Collection Executive and was not earning Rs. 10,500/ pm at the time of accident or that he was not earning Rs. 16,600/ per month before he had left the full time job with the said Lab. He admitted that he had not filed any document in order to show that his son had worked with Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital. He further deposed that deceased was pursuing B.Sc(MLT) through correspondence from some college situated in Sonepat, Haryana. He admitted that deceased had cleared first and second semester of aforesaid degree course in September 2012 as mentioned in Ex. PW1/11 and also admitted that the said document did not bear official stamp of the University.
26. PW2 namely Sh. Manish Kumar, proprietor, Diya Path Lab, deposed that Rustam was his employee and had joined his lab as Lab AssistantcumSample Collection Executive in the month of October 2012 for the first time and was getting salary of Rs. 16,600/per month including allowances. Thereafter, he left the job in the month of May 2013. He testified that the salary certificate(Ex. PW1/19) was true and correct. He further deposed that Rustam again joined his lab as Sample Collection Executive in the month of June 2013 under part time job program and worked till 15.09.13 and he was getting salary of Rs. 10,500/ per month. He further testified that the salary certificate(Ex. PW1/21) was true and correct. During his cross examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, he deposed that they had not given any employment certificate to deceased except the salary certificates (Ex. PW1/19 & Ex. PW1/21). He denied the suggestion that Mr. Rustam never worked with Diya Path Lab and the documents produced by him, were fabricated. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that there were two employees namely Rustam and Sarita who were working in his lab at the monthly salary of Rs. 16,600/ and Rs. 4,000/ per Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 month respectively. He further deposed that he did not have salary or attendance register or any salary/paid vouchers as the same had not been prepared for record as he had only two employees. The salary was paid in cash to both the employees. The documents(Ex. PW1/19 and Ex. PW1/21) were not within the knowledge of Dr. Ashok Malhotra as same was not required to be done. He denied the suggestion that he had issued fabricated documents Ex. PW1/19 & Ex. PW1/21 without the consent of Dr. Ashok Malhotra. He further denied the suggestion that he had misused the letter head which contains the digital signature of Dr. Ashok Malhotra by issuing the documents Ex. PW1/19 & Ex. PW1/21. He denied the suggestion that Rustam was not working with Diya Path Lab.
27. PW3 Sh. Nandan Singh Bisht, Field Officer, Om Shiv House Keeping Services deposed that deceased Rustam was employed as a Ward Boy with their concern in the year 2013 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 7722/ per month. He exhibited the said salary record as Ex. PW3/2(colly). He produced the attendance register for the months of June 2013, July 2013 and September 2013 and marked the same as Mark PW3/3(colly). He testified that salary certificate(Ex. PW1/20) dated 18.10.13 of deceased, had been issued by their concern. He deposed that apart from the salary paid to the deceased, no other conveyance allowances was being paid to him. During his cross examination on behalf of respondents, he admitted that deceased was being paid wages per day depending upon the number of working days for which he performed his duty during a month. No appointment letter was issued to deceased at the time of his employment.
28. Counsels for the respondents argued that for want of any reliable evidence concerning monthly income of deceased, his monthly income should be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. Counsel for insurance company further argued that the certificates (Ex. PW1/19 to Ex. PW1/21) do not bear any official stamp of Diya Path Lab Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 and of Om Shiv House Keeping Services and thus, all the said three documents should not be taken into consideration. He further argued that said documents have been issued without the consent of Competent Authorities and the testimonies of PW2 & PW3 are not supported by any proper documentary evidence. He further argued that except mother, the other petitioner can not be termed as dependent upon the income of deceased. Hence, there has to be deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
29. On the other hand, counsel for petitioners while relying upon the ocular testimonies of PW2 & PW3 and the documents brought on record by them, argued that deceased was lastly earning a sum of Rs. 18,222/ per month at the time of accident and said amount should be taken into consideration in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
30. As already noted above, PW2 Sh. Manish Kumar is none else but the proprietor of Diya Path Lab, where deceased was working as part time Sample Collection Executive at the time of accident. He has catergorically deposed in this regard and has duly corroborated the relevant part of the testimony of PW1 Naresh Chander (father of deceased) in this regard. Not only this, PW2 has reiterated that the certificates dated 16.05.13 (Ex. PW1/19) and dated 11.10.13 (Ex. PW1/21) were issued by him. He categorically deposed that previously, deceased was his full time employee as Lab AssistantcumSample Collection Executive and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 16,600/ till he left the job in May 2013 and subsequently, deceased Rustam again joined as part time Sample Collection Executive in the same Lab on monthly salary of Rs. 10,500/ in June 2013. The respondents could not discredit his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination despite the fact that witness was crossexamined at length on their behalf. Moreover, the respondents have not led any evidence whatsoever in order to controvert the testimony of this witness or to dispute the documents proved by him during the Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 course of inquiry. Thus, there is no reason to discard the testimony of this witness or the documents brought on record by him.
31. As regards the testimony of PW3, it may be noted that the said witness had produced authority letter (Ex. PW3/1) issued in his favour by the proprietor of Om Shiv House Keeping Services, whereby he was authorized to produce the relevant documents and to depose in this matter. He categorically testified that deceased Rustam was employed as Ward Boy with them and his last drawn monthly salary was Rs. 7,722/. Not only this, he also produced salary record of deceased for the month of September 2013(Ex. PW3/2) as also the copies of Attendance Register (Mark PW3/3 colly) for the period June 2013, July 2013 and September 2013 showing that Rustam had been attending his duty with the aforesaid proprietorship concerned during the relevant period. Apart from this, he also reiterated that the salary certificate dated 18.10.13(Ex. PW1/20) had been issued by their firm. He also testified that as per policy of their firm, there used to be revision in the payscale of employee as per Minimum Wages Act. Again, the respondents were not able to impeach the testimony of this witness during crossexamination. Hence, I again do not find any reason for not considering the ocular testimony of this witness or to overlook the documents brought by him on record.
32. From the conjoint reading of the ocular testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and the documents (Ex. PW1/19 to Ex. PW1/21 and Ex. PW3/2 and Mark PW3/3 colly), there is no iota of doubt that Rustam was earning Rs. 18,222/ per month at the time of accident. Accordingly, said amount needs to be taken into consideration in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
33. In copy of Secondary School Examination Certificate ( which is part of Ex. PW1/9 colly), the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 07.03.1987. Same is the date of birth mentioned in copy of DL (Mark A) of deceased as well as in copy of PAN Card (Ex. PW1/4) of deceased. The date Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 of accident is 24.09.2013. Thus, he was aged between 2627 years at the time of accident in question. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
34. Keeping in view the fact that deceased was undisputedly bachelor at the time of accident and is survived by his parents and there is nothing on record to establish that his father was financially dependent upon him, it is held that petitioner no. 2 Smt. Krishna alone was financially dependent upon deceased at the time of accident. Thus, there has to be deduction of 1/2 as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 40% towards element of future prospect in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged less than 40 years of age at the time of accident), in view of recent pronouncement made by Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the yearly loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 1,53,065/ (rounded off) (Rs. 18,222/X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12). Annual income upto Rs. 2,00,000/ was totally exempted from income tax for the Financial Year 201314(corresponding to the Assessment Year 201415). Thus, no amount is liable to be deducted on account of income tax. Hence, a sum of Rs. 26,02,105/(Rs. 1,53,065/ x 17) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
35. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 26,02,105/
2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 26,32,105/ Rounded Off to Rs. 26,32,100/ Compensation in MACP No. 4548/16(Injured Rajesh) MEDICAL EXPENSES
37. PW Rajesh has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/1) that he was removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was examined vide MLC No. 66273/13. As per said MLC, he had sustained critical, grievous and life threatening injuries all over his body especially on his lower portion. Thereafter, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he underwent intensive care, including major multiple surgeries on his right knee and surgical implants were embedded. He remained hospitalized there for about 67 days. He deposed to have spent Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 more than Rs. 8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs Only) on his medical treatment. He has relied upon his original medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,91,090/ only(Ex. PW1/D & Ex. PW1/E colly). Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not cross examine this witness on this aspect at all. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had not filed medical bills showing that he had incurred a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ on his medical treatment. He denied the suggestion that he had not incurred a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ on his medical treatment. It is quite evident that respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the aforesaid medical bills filed on record. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,91,090/is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of Income/Leaves
38. PW Rajesh has deposed that he was working as Technician with Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital since 1998. As such after accomplishing successful tenure of 15 years with the aforesaid organization, he was likely to be promoted as Senior Technician/Supervisor in the year 2013. However, due to his physical deformity and incapacitation on account of the accident, his promotion has been altogether declined. Due to accident in question, he will have to move throughout his life with the support of leg guard and / or orthopedic stick as his left knee has been permanently paralyzed. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he had not undergone knee replacement so far. He further deposed that he was working as Technician in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He also deposed that he was having permanent job as Technician with Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital. He had not filed documentary proof to show his absence from his duty. His salary was not deducted by his employer after the accident for the period of his absence from the duty. He volunteered that his leaves were exhausted. He admitted that he did not suffer any loss of income on account of accident in question.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 28MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
39. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured argued that the injured had suffered loss of leaves as he remained absent from his duty from 24.09.13 to 15.01.2014 on account of injuries sustained by him. Therefore, appropriate compensation amount may be awarded to him. However, no cogent or definite evidence has been led by the injured to prove the same. Apart from the fact that affidavit in evidence (Ex. PW1/1) of injured is completely silent on this aspect, he also failed to examine his employer for producing the relevant leave record to show the period of leaves availed by him due to the accident. Hence, no amount can be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
40. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
41. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/1) that he had sustained critical, grievous and life threatening injuries all over his body especially on his lower portion. He has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 77% in relation to his both lower limbs. Apart from the fact that the relevant portion of his testimony in this regard, has Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by Disability Certificate (Ex. PW1/C)filed by him. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
42. Ld. Counsel of petitioner argued that the petitioner is also entitled to compensation under this head as he had sustained critical, grievous and life threatening injuries all over his body especially on his lower portion due to accident in question. It can not be overlooked that since the petitioner had sustained multiple injuries, he would have remained confined to his residence for considerable period and during which he would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life. He is also shown to have suffered permanent disability of 77% in relation to his both lower limbs. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life in future as well and quality of his life has also been affected. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as noted above, I award notional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to him.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
43. Although, injured Rajesh has deposed that he had spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant. However, no definite evidence has been led by him to prove the same. Thus, it would involve guess work on the part of Tribunal to award notional amount under this head since petitioner would have definitely taken rich protein diet for his speedy recovery. He would have also used the facility of conveyance for Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 visiting the hospital from time to time as OPD patient during the period of his treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each on account of special diet and attendant charges and Rs. 5,000/ on account of conveyance charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
44. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 77% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 01.02.16 (Ex. PW1/C) issued by Medical Board of BJRM Hospital. The petitioner has also testified in this regard while examining himself as PW1 during inquiry. However, none of respondents crossexamined him at all on this aspect.
45. Keeping in view the fact that the permanent disability sustained by petitioner is in relation to both lower limbs, he can not be expected to perform any work/job requiring him to remain standing continuously for long duration or involving field visits. He can perform only such kind of activities wherein he can remain sit or can travel by any mode of transport. Hence, his functional disability is taken as 50% with regard to whole body. The petitioner was aged about 37 years of age as on the date of accident, as averred in his clam petition. As per copy of his Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/B), his date of birth is 15.05.1975. The date of accident is 24.09.2013. In view of said document, his age would come somewhere between 3738 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 in view of recent pronouncement made by constitutional bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." supra.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 23 of 28MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
46. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured fairly conceded that for want of any cogent evidence with regard to monthly income of injured/petitioner, his income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The petitioner has not filed any document in respect to his educational qualification.
47. No doubt, apart from the ocular testimony of PW Rajesh (who is the injured himself), there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that he was working as Technician with Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital at the time of the accident. Nevertheless, the relevant portion of his testimony, whereby he deposed that he was working as Technician with Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, has gone totally unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. In this backdrop, I am inclined to take the minimum wages of skilled worker under Minimum Wages Act during the period in question. The minimum wages of skilled worker were Rs. 9,386/ per month, as on the date of accident which is 24.09.2013. The minimum wages of skilled worker were revised to Rs. 9,802/pm w.e.f. 01.10.2013. The accident in question had occurred on 24.09.2013 i.e. just 6 days before the date from which minimum wages were revised by the government. In these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to take the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 9,802/ per month in order to calculate future loss of income under this head. (Reliance placed on unreported decision in the matter titled as "THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. CHHOTEY LAL & ORS. ", in MAC. APP. 1074/2016 decided on 15.05.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.)
48. The notional monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 9,802/ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 4,901/ (Rs. 9,802/ x 50/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 12,35,052/ (Rs. 4,901/ x 140/100 x 12 x 15). Thus, a sum of Rs. 12,35,052/ is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 24 of 28MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 (Reliance placed on decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Om Const. & Ors.", MAC APP No. 464/2011 decided on 03.11.17 and "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors.", MAC APP No. 843/2011, decided on 03.11.17).
Thus, t he total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,91,090/
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/
4. Conveyance, special diet and attendant Rs. 25,000/ charges
5. Loss of future income Rs. 12,35,052/ Total Rs. 18,51,142/ Rounded off to Rs. 18,51,100/
49. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 4 RELIEF
50. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 to 3, I award a sum of Rs. 26,32,100/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 25 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 5483/16 and a sum of Rs. 18,51,100/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 4548/16, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petitions i.e. 20.03.14 (MACP No. 5483/16) and 27.11.13 (MACP No. 4548/16) respectively in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
51. Statements of petitioners/injured in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP were recorded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5483/16, petitioner no. 1 Sh. Naresh Chander shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,32,100/ (Rupees Ten Lacs THIrty Two Thousand and One Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest and petitioner no. 2 Smt. Krishna shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 16,00,000/ (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) and out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to them through their saving bank account nos. 5914101007459 (of Naresh Chander) and 5914101007460 (of Smt. Krishna) with Canara Bank, Jahangir Puri Branch, having IFSC Code. CNRB0005914 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
52. Out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 4548/16, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs and Twenty Five Thousand only) (since a sum of Rs. 1,91,090/ has already been incurred by the injured on his treatment) shall be immediately released to injured Rajesh through his saving Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 26 of 28 MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018 bank account 52082010003620 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector - 5, Rohini Branch, Delhi, having IFSC Code ORBC0105208 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10.000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
53. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions: (I) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) The maturity amount(s) of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the savings bank accounts of the claimant(s) in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant(s) in respect of the savings bank accounts in which the award amount is to be sent/credited, without permission of the Court. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, the bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
54. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimants were examined in order to ascertain as to whether they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. Claimants namely Naresh Chander and Rajesh made statement on oath that they were not entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS. On the other hand, claimant Smt. Krishna made statement on oath that she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished her respective Form No. 15G on record.
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 27 of 28MACP Nos. 5483/16 & 4548/16, FIR No. 293/13; PS. Mahendra Park DOD: 23.04.2018
55. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amount as mentioned above in the aforesaid saving bank accounts of petitioners mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Order be given dasti alongwith Form No. 15G in original of the claimant Smt. Krishna (on retaining photocopy thereof on record) to counsel for insurance company. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, 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. Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial records of MAC Petition No. 4548/16, as per the rules.
Announced in the open
Court on 23.04.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Naresh Chander & Anr., Rajesh Vs. Shiv Bahadur Yadav & Ors. Page 28 of 28