Delhi District Court
Gurucharan Dass vs . Ajeet Kumar & Ors on 5 April, 2022
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD MATTER
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
GURUCHARAN DASS VS. AJEET KUMAR & ORS
MACP No. 253/16
Sh. Guru Charan Dass
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o House No. 439,
Block35,
Trilok Puri,
Delhi110091 ......Petitioner/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Ajeet Kumar
S/o Shri Vinod Kamat
R/o F203, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur,
New Delhi
2. Shri Sonu Kumar
S/o Shri Data Ram
R/o Z237, ZBlock,
Prem NagarI,
Kirari, Suleman Nagar,
New Delhi110042
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
BO: Mandal No.9,
MACP No. 253/16 Page 1 of 25
302, Third Floor,
N.N. Mall (M2K Cinema),
Sector3, Rohini,
Delhi110042 .....Respondents
Date of filing of suit/petition : 07.08.2015
Date of framing of issues : 22.05.2015
Date of concluding arguments : 05.04.2022
Date of decision : 05.04.2022
AWARD/JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Vide this judgment, I propose to dispose off the present claim petition filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act read with the relevant rules and prescribed procedure. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition relates to grievous injuries suffered by petitioner Sh. Guru Charan Dass in a road accident that took place on 20.10.2014 at about 08.30 AM at NH8, Near Rajasthan Petrol Pump, Rajokari Flyover (towards Gurgaon), New Delhi, regarding which one FIR bearing no. 1019/14, under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj South. The offending vehicle involved in this case is one Xylo Taxi bearing registration no. DL1VB7528, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1 (R1), owned by R2 (respondent no.2) and insured with R3 MACP No. 253/16 Page 2 of 25 (respondent no. 3).
2. The case of petitioner, briefly stated, is that on the above said date, time and place of accident, the petitioner Gurucharan Dass was going on his Motorcycle bearing No. DL7SBN8415 from Mahipalpur side to Gurgaon in a normal speed and obeying the traffic rules. That the offending car bearing no. DL1VB7528, in utter disregard of traffic regulations and negligently, came from wrong side i.e. from Mapple Hotel side to Petrol Pump and hit the Motorcycle from front side. That due to forceful impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and the petitioner received grievous injuries. That the petitioner was removed to Neelkanth Hospital, DLF Phase III, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon and after receiving the first aid, the petitioner left against medical advise (LAMA) and went to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital where his MLC bearing no. 456673/200CT/2014 was prepared. As per discharge summary, he was found to be a case of left frontal bone fracture and right temporal bone fracture. As no beds were available, he was referred to transfer to any other Centre/Government Hospital. Thereafter, he underwent further treatment and it seems that a surgery was performed on 12.11.2014 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, whereby an implant was placed at right orbital region. Aforesaid MACP No. 253/16 Page 3 of 25 documents are on record.
3. That the DAR in the present case was filed on 03.01.2015 and the same is directed to be clubbed with the present claim petition vide order dated 07.08.2015.
4. R1 and R2 filed a joint written statement. It was claimed that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1. It was claimed that the present petition is without any cause of action. It was claimed that the R1 was falsely implicated by the police in collusion with the petitioner. It was claimed that the R1 was not involved in the alleged accident.
5. R3/Insurance Company had also filed its written statement claiming that the driving licence of the driver was not valid as per the report of IO and therefore, there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was claimed that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and the accident was caused due to the negligence of petitioner. It was claimed that the petition was bad for mis joinder/non joinder of necessary parties. It was claimed that respondent no.3 reserves its right to take appropriate defence under Section 170 of MV Act, if the owner and the driver failed to contest the claim condition or it was found that they were in collusion with the petitioner.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 4 of 256. On 22.05.2015, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal for disposal of present DARs :
1. Whether Sh. Gurucharan Dass sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.10.2014, at about 8.30 AM at NH8, Near Rajasthan Petrol Pump, Rajokari Flyover (towards Gurgaon), New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL1VB 7528 being driven by Sh. Ajeet Kumar, owned by Sh. Sonu Kumar and insured with National Insurance Company? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner as well as the insurance company. However, none has turned up on behalf of R1 and R2 for addressing final arguments. The case record has also been perused. The R1 and R2 stopped appearing in the present matter as per order dated 23.05.2018 and their right to lead evidence was closed. None appeared on behalf of R1 and R2 thereafter and therefore, I am proceeding to decide the present case without waiting any further for R1 and R2. My findings on the above issues are as MACP No. 253/16 Page 5 of 25 under : ISSUE No. 1
8. 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 in fact even lesser than that in a civil case.
9. 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, (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 etc.
10. Petitioner appeared in the witness box as a sole witness to prove his claim. The insurance company examined MACP No. 253/16 Page 6 of 25 its Administrative Officer Ms. Meenakshi as R3W1 to prove its claim that the driving licence of R1 was fake.
11. Petitioner/PW1 tendered on record his examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He exhibited the medical treatment record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly), medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 (colly), copy of his office identity card as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR). He also marked his Election I Card as Mark A and copy of salary slip as Mark B. It has been observed that in the said affidavit, he has made specific deposition regarding the factum as well as manner of the said accident which has already been discussed hereinabove. He has further deposed in his affidavit regarding the nature of injuries suffered by him and treatment taken thereof.
12. The witness was duly cross examined on behalf of all the respondents. Witness stated that he could not recall whether he gave his DL to IO. He was unable to produce any DL when asked in the court. He denied the suggestion that he was not having any DL and therefore, the same was never handed over to the IO. Barring the claim that he was not having a DL or not wearing a helmet, there was no specific cross examination on the claim of the witness that offending vehicle had hit his Motorcycle while coming from the wrong side and while being driven rashly and negligently. No other version of the accident was put to the witness disputing his claim in MACP No. 253/16 Page 7 of 25 testimony. The occurrence of accident was not disputed and the testimony of the witness in this regard has gone unrebutted.
13. It can be said that during his cross examination, nothing material could be extracted out from him which can make this tribunal to disbelieve or discard his testimony. The petitioner is duly corroborated by the documentary evidence which has been led on record by petitioner in the form of records of above criminal case, which have been filed before this tribunal by the Investigating Officer (IO) as a part of DAR documents. Moreover, it has not been disputed that R1 stands already chargesheeted in the above criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for causing grievous injuries on the persons of claimant by his rash and negligent driving of the above said vehicle and the same in itself is a strong circumstance to corroborate the testimony of petitioners on above aspects.
14. Apart from the above, R1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by the above witness regarding the involvement of vehicle in the above accident, 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, 2009 (3) AD MACP No. 253/16 Page 8 of 25 (Delhi) 310.
15. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioners on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident resulting into grievous injuries on the persons of petitioner took place due to rash and negligent driving of the above offending vehicle bearing no. DL1VB 7850 which was being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries and disability suffered in above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. 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'. In the injury cases a claimant is MACP No. 253/16 Page 9 of 25 entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The nonpecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the nonpecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995, SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011)1 SCC 343.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 10 of 2518. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner has tendered on record his medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) of the value Rs.22,678/. There is no serious cross examination with regard to the bills. The suggestions pertaining to non payment of amount to Neelkanth Hospital and procurement of bill for cortex screws were denied. Even otherwise, the said suggestions are in the teeth of the medical documents on record. The Ld. Counsel for the insurance company tried to project during arguments that the bill dated 19.02.2015 being part of Ex.PW1/2 (colly) did not corresponds with treatment and that patient could not have been in AIIMS in 12.11.2014, as also, in Neelkanth Hospital simultaneously. I have noted that the bill dated 19.02.2015 pertains to only one day i.e. 20.10.2014 and corresponds with the declaration on the discharge summary of Neelkanth Hospital dated 20.10.2014 (11.00 AM) forming part of Ex.PW1/1 (colly). It is only thereafter, that against medical advise, the patient shifted to AIIMS and was discharged and ultimately, underwent surgery MACP No. 253/16 Page 11 of 25 on 12.11.2014 with only one day's admission. Some documents of treatment taken in between seem to be missing but the treatment documents on record and the medical bills corresponds with the injuries. The purchase of screws corresponds with the discharge summary dated 12.11.2014 of AIIMS New Delhi, where it is mentioned that a 1.5 mm plate and 4 screws were placed at right inferior orbital region. Therefore, the above medical bill and expense of petitioner are found to be in consonance with the treatment taken and injuries suffered by him, he is being awarded the above amount of Rs. 22,678/ against his medical expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
20. As per discharge summary of AIIMS dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner had suffered minor head injury i.e. left frontal bone fracture and right temporal bone fracture. Left ZM complex fracture with pre orbital edema and further medical documents suggest that ultimately, he underwent a surgery on 12.11.2014 at AIIMS, New Delhi, it can be safely assumed that he might not have been able to perform his professional duties for about 23 months. The witness had exhibited his office I card as Ex.PW1/3 which indicates that he was working as a Tax Rider with one White House Facilities MACP No. 253/16 Page 12 of 25 Pvt. Ltd. He had also marked a copy of his salary slip as Mark B. However, original salary slip was never produced and during cross examination by respondent no. 1 and 2, the ID card and his averment in the affidavit that he was working as a Rider in PWC was not probed but his salary slip was questioned as forged and fabricated. In any event, the said document records his basic salary as Rs.15,500/ and HRA as Rs.8,500/, there is a special allowance of Rs.15,487/ and washing allowance of Rs.1,092/. However, the petitioner did not echoes about his salary and allowances specifically and I see no reason why a copy of one month's pay slip was placed on record and no ITR and other salary slips were filed or the salary was sought to be proved through the employer. In my view, the petitioner has failed to prove that he was entitled to special allowance every month and not that it was admissible at only any particular month. However, his employment as a Rider cannot be disputed. In these circumstances, he is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month approximately considering that even minimum wages for skilled worker would have been closed to the said amount. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 2021, arising out of SLP (C) No. 6466 of 2019, where the Supreme Court MACP No. 253/16 Page 13 of 25 has held that the vocation alleged to have been carried out or proved may be taken into consideration while arriving at a figure towards income of deceased.
21. Therefore, under this head, he is being awarded an amount of Rs. 45,000/ (Rs. 15,000/ X 3).
(iii) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
22. As stated above, the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries and implant but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.35,000/ each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & pain and sufferings and besides this, an amount of Rs.10,000/ is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.80,000/ under this head.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 14 of 25(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
23. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner has claimed that he had spent Rs.50,000/ towards conveyance and Rs.30,000/ towards special diet. However, he has not placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate his above claims. Still this tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for petitioner for frequently visiting the hospitals and doctors in connection with his treatment and hospitalization and also that of the special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the above accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/ is being awarded to the petitioner towards the requirements of conveyance and Rs. 6,000/ per month for three months towards the requirement of special diet.
24. Besides the above amount, an amount of Rs. 6,000/ per month for three months is also being granted to him towards attendant charges or for the gratuitous services rendered by his family members during the period of hospitalization and immobility.
25. Therefore, a total amount of Rs.46,000/ is being awarded to him under this head.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 15 of 25Issue No.3/Relief
26. The petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,93,678/ (Rupees One Lac Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight Only) along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE
27. The entire amount is directed to be released in the saving bank account of petitioner bearing No. 50530879380 having IFSC Code ALLA0212456, being maintained with Allahabad Bank, Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi through RTGS/NEFT or any other electronic mode considering that the matter is more than 5 years old. However, it is noticed that the endorsed copy of first page of bank passbook has not been placed on record. Therefore, Nazir as well as Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi are directed to ensure that the amount be disbursed or released to the petitioner only after filing on record the endorsed copy of first page of bank passbook.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 16 of 25LIABILITY
28. It is the case of R3/Insurance Company that R1/driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. In order to prove the same, R3 produced one Ms. Meenakshi Choudhary, Admn. Officer, from their office who exhibited copy of notice as Ex. R3W1/1, postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/2, office copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/3, verification report as Ex. R3W1/4 and copy of driving license as Ex. R3W1/5. This witness was never cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 as none was present on 05.10.2020 as per ordersheet. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 and 2 never appeared in the present matter nor have they tried to probe the evidence of Insurance Company nor led any rebuttal evidence.
29. On perusal of DL verification report Ex. R3W1/4, it has been found recorded that the driving license bearing No. 15671/KP/09 was not issued from the RTO Kanpur and the same appears to be a fake license. Hence, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R3 is first liable to deposit the MACP No. 253/16 Page 17 of 25 awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any eform in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event R3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond 90 days from today and in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of R3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/.
30. R3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel through registered posts regarding the deposit of amount with the tribunal.
31. The copy of this 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 Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014. A copy of the award be also emailed to the Insurance Company in terms of standing instructions.
MACP No. 253/16 Page 18 of 2532. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
33. The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 20.10.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigation Officer to the Not given Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the do Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the do Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report (DAR) by the Investigating 03.01.2015 Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the do Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the do claimant(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR No
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes MACP No. 253/16 Page 19 of 25 documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Not given Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his No report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Legal offer filed Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Delay in filing reply Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of Legal offer not acceptable the offer of the Insurance Company.
18. Date of the award 05.04.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes MACP No. 253/16 Page 20 of 25 directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank 11.04.2018 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) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place 26.02.2021 of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o House No. 439, Block Claimant(s) 35, Trilok Puri, Delhi110091
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of Bank's Name & Address the claimant(s) and the address of the Allahabad Bank, Mayur bank with IFSC Code. Vihar, Delhi Account Holder's Name -
Sh. Guru Charan Dass Account No. 50530879380 IFSC ALLA0212456
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of Yes residence?
MACP No. 253/16 Page 21 of 2526. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of No the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
34. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary formalities. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 12.07.2022.
Announced in the open court (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) on 05.04.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format MACP No. 253/16 Page 22 of 25 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORMXVI
1.Date of accident : 20.10.2014
2.Name of the injured : Gurucharan Dass
3.Age of the injured : Around 48 years
4.Occupation of the injured : Pvt. Job
5.Income of the injured : Rs.15,000/ per month
6.Nature of injury : Grievous
7.Medical treatment taken by the injured : Neelkanth Hospital & AIIMS
8.Period of hospitalization : As stated above
9.Whether any permanent disability? : Nil
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 22,678/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 18,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 18,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.45,000/
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Nonpecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.35,000/ physical shock MACP No. 253/16 Page 23 of 25
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.10,000/
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships,disappointment,frustrati on, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income Nil
14. Total Compensation Rs.1,93,678/
15. Interest Awarded 6% pa from date of filing of
DAR till deposit in 90 days
and 9% after 90 days.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.84,337.48
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.2,78,015.48/ (rounded off
to Rs. 2,78,100/)
18. Award amount released Entire amount
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs/ Nil
MACP No. 253/16 Page 24 of 25
Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 12.07.2022
award
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
05.04.2022
MACP No. 253/16 Page 25 of 25