Delhi District Court
Tarun vs Narayan Singh on 8 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLWT010033552019
MACT Case No. 280/2019
Sh. Trun
S/o Sh. Mangal Singh
R/o H.No. 79/5, Gali no. 16,
Chanchal Park,
Delhi-110041 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Narayan Singh
S/o Sh. Godhan Singh
R/o H.No. 2, Khasra No. 68/7,
Rupali Enclave,
Village Karala,
Delhi.
Permanent address:
KMDTS, Haldwani
Nainital, Uttrakhand
2. Ashpal Singh Bhullar
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh
R/o H. no. 154, B-Block,
Shivaji Enclave, Janta Colony,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at C-3, Milan Cinema Complex,
Karam Pura, Delhi .....Respondents
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08
16:52:03 +0530
MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024
Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 31
Date of Institution : 29.04.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 31.01.2024
Date of pronouncement : 08.02.2024
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 553/2018 PS Ranhola regarding the accident in question. As per the documents annexed with the DAR, on 17.09.2018 at about 2 pm, while the petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCL7580 and when he reached at Najafgarh-Nangloi Road, near Bakkarwala Mor, an oil tanker bearing no. HR55S7530 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 (Narayan Singh) in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and also coming from the wrong side, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from the front side and due to the heavy impact of hitting, the petitioner fell down on the road alongwith his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that petitioner was rushed to Rathi Hospital, Pratap Vihar, Ranhola, Delhi, wherein he was medically examined vide MLC No. 271/2018 dated 17.09.2018 and thereafter, he was taken to VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18.09.2018 for the purpose of his treatment and discharged on 27.09.2018. He was again admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi on 03.03.2019 and discharged on 04.03.2019.
2. It is further stated that as a result of the abovesaid accident, FIR No. 553/2018 PS Ranhola dated 22.09.2018 was SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:10 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 31 registered. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent No. 1 being the driver of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was also accompanied with other relevant documents including final report U/s 173 CrPC, MLC of injured, discharge summary, mechanical inspection report, seizure memos of vehicles, its documents, site plan, arrest memo of respondent no.1, notice u/s 133 M.V. Act and its reply etc.
3. A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner, wherein it is stated inter alia that at the time of accident, the claimant was driving the bike without any valid driving license and was not authorized to ply the bike on the road; that the owner of the bike was also responsible for the injury sustained to the petitioner in the alleged accident as he had given his bike to the petitioner without confirming whether the petitioner was having a valid driving license; that without prejudice to the above, the offending vehicle was duly insured by National Insurance Company Limited vide policy no. 360300311810001617 for the period from 26.06.2018 to 25.06.2019; that the respondents have scrupulously observed and complied with all conditions of the policy and, therefore, liability, if any, is fixed on the answering respondent, the same may be recovered from the insurance company; that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, which has been duly verified by the IO and that the driver holds a valid certificate for driving vehicles with dangerous goods.
4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the insurance SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:18 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 31 company/respondent no.3, wherein it is stated inter alia that the vehicle no. HR55S7530 was duly insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the time of alleged accident in favour of Sh. Ashpal Singh Bhullar vide policy no. 360300311810001617 for the period from 26.06.2018 to 25.06.2019 subject to the terms and conditions of insurance policy; that the owner of the vehicle intentionally and knowingly plied the vehicle on road in violation of terms and conditions of the policy without valid permit, authorization and driving license of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident; that the permit no. 6336/NP/13 is from 26.09.2018 to 02.10.2023 which is not covering the date of accident i.e. 17.09.2018; that no endorsement has been issued by the Licensing Authority for hazardous goods and the driver of offending vehicle did not have valid driving license to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident. It is further stated that the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged accident, who was driving the motorcycle without any valid driving license and without wearing any helmet. It is further stated that there is delay in registration of FIR as he was admitted on 17.09.2018 at Rathi Hospital but the FIR has been registered only on 22.09.2018 and the owner of the vehicle had not given any information to the answering respondent regarding the accident as required under the law of the land.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 31.05.2019:-
1. Whether the injured Tarun sustained injuries in an accident that took place at about 2.15 pm on 17.9.2018 near Bakkar Wala Road, Nangloi, Najafgarh Road, Ranhola, Delhi involving Tanker SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:25 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 31 bearing registration no. HR55S 7530 (offending vehicle) being driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined three witnesses. PW-1 is petitioner who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. However, his testimony is not being discussed, at this stage, for the sake of brevity.
7. PW2 Mr. Rajiv Chaudhary, Medical Record Clerk from Rathi Hospital, who brought the summoned record i.e. medical treatment record including MLC Ex.PW2/A, discharge summary, medical bills and treatment record of patient. He has also filed the computer-generated bills for Rs.14,000/- issued by Rathi Hospital, which is Ex.PW2/B and also brought X-ray and X-ray report of patient, which is Ex.PW2/C. Authority Letter in his favour is Ex.PW2/A. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the treatment given to the petitioner and he is deposing on the basis of record brought by him.
8. PW-3 Dr. Naresh Chandra, Specialist Grade-1, HOD/ Orthopedics, Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. He was not cross examined by the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:33 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 31 Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3. However, his testimony is not being discussed, at this stage, for the sake of brevity.
9. In respondent evidence, two witnesses viz. RW1/W1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and RW1/W2 Sh. Narayan Singh have been examined on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 and one witness viz R3W1 Sh. Raj Kumar, Assistant, National Insurance Company Limited has been examined on behalf of the insurance company.
10. RW1/W1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, field executive from Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida filed on record authorization letter in his favour Ex.RW1W1/1, copy of his identity card is Ex.RW1W1/2, the attendance record the driver Narayan Singh, which is Ex.RW1W1/3 at point A; Gazette Notification is Ex.RW1W1/4; copy of form 11 is Ex.RW1W1/5 and certificate issued by them to the driver Narayan Singh for transportation of hazardous goods is Ex.RW1W1/6. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner despite opportunity given. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/insurance company, wherein he denied that the school is not authorized to give training for hazardous vehicle or that the certificate issued by them is not authorized.
11. RW1/W2 Sh. Narayan Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1W2/A wherein, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken in the reply by him. He also stated that he was having valid driving license w.e.f. 15.04.2002 to 07.10.2018 issued by Haldwani, RTO which has been verified by the IO of SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:40 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 31 this case; that he had undergone training programme for driving the vehicle with hazardous goods as per CMV-1989 Rule 9 from Om Sai, Motor Driving Training School, Noida for the period from 04.07.2018 to 06.07.2018 valid upto 05.07.2019 and possessed the valid certificate of driving the vehicle with hazardous goods, although the vehicle was empty at the relevant time; that on 17.09.2018, the accident of motorcycle DL4SCL7580 did not occur with the tanker bearing No. HR55S- 7530 rather it was caused by some other vehicle; that he was not driving the aforesaid vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and falsely implicated in the present case. He has relied the documents: (i) Copy of insurance policy Ex.RW1W2/1; (ii) copy of certificate of fitness is Ex.RW2/2; (iii) copy of letter sent by IO to RTO Gurugram in respect of verification of permit of the offending vehicle and verification report of RTO, Gurugram is Ex.RW2/3; (iv) verification report of driving license of driver Naryan Singh by IO from RTO Haldwani is Ex.RW2/4 and (v) the copy of National Permit is Mark A. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, wherein he stated that he was having valid driving license as well as valid permit, fitness, insurance and training of hazardous goods certificate at the time of alleged accident; that he had not made any complaint against the victim who was not having license being a minor. He admitted that a criminal case FIR No. 553/18 is pending against him, wherein he has been charge-sheeted in the said matter. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, despite opportunity given.
12. In respondent evidence on behalf of insurance company, one witness viz R3W1 Sh. Raj Kumar, Assistant, SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:52:47 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 31 National Insurance Company Limited was examined on behalf of insurance company/respondent no.3. He has deposed on the lines of written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company. He has deposed inter alia that he has brought the notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC issued to the respondent no.1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle to produce the driving license, permit, fitness and insurance policy or any other related document for offending vehicle having registration no. HR-55-S-7530 alongwith postal receipts, which are marked as R3W1/1; that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license and permit on the date of accident i.e. 17.09.2018 and insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount as there is violation of terms and conditions of policy. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, despite opportunity given. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2, he stated that he cannot tell as to what violation has been done by the driver and owner of the vehicle regarding the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He admitted that the license of the driver filed by the IO in the DAR report is genuine. He also stated that permit of the said vehicle was also valid at the time of accident. He further stated that he had seen the photocopy of the license of the driver in which it is clearly endorsed that he can drive commercial heavy transport vehicle. He denied that insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
13. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for petitioner as well as Ld. counsel for respondents. I have also gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 16:52:55 +0530 Date: 2024.02.08 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 31 ISSUE No.1
14. It is settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. The onus to prove this issue was placed on the petitioner. Petitioner/PW-1 tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of medical documents including discharge summary and medical treatment record Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); (iii) Medical bills in original Ex.PW1/3 (Colly); (iv) DAR Ex.PW1/4 and (v) his photograph Ex.PW1/5. PW-1 deposed in lines with the petition and has well explained the mode and manner of the accident.
16. In his cross-examination done by the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, PW-1 has denied to the suggestion that accident took place due to his negligence or that the offending vehicle has not caused any accident or that he had SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:01 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 31 falsely implicated the driver of offending vehicle of the present case. In his cross examination by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, he stated that he did not hold any driving license; that accident took place about 2:00 PM; that it was one way at the spot; that offending vehicle was signalled by the traffic police as it was going on wrong side and after the accident, driver of offending vehicle managed to flee away from the spot after leaving the offending vehicle at the spot.
17. From the careful perusal of the testimony of the injured / PW-1 including his cross examination, there is nothing material has been elicited to disbelieve the version of accident as given by PW-1. The mere fact that in the instant case injured was not holding a valid driving licence is ipso-facto not sufficient to hold that accident had either taken place due to the negligence or contributory negligence of injured. There is also no evidence on record to prove that injured was not wearing the helmet at the time of accident. Even no suggestion to this effect was given to the PW-1 on behalf of respondents. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that injured was driving the motorcycle rashly or negligently. Rather evidence of PW-1 remained consistent on the aspect of accident, having been caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It is evident from the testimony of PW-1 that respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination. PW-1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against respondent no.1. The testimony of PW-1 remained unimpeachable on the aspect of accident in question.
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 16:53:09 +0530 Date: 2024.02.08 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 31 There is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner herein. Moreover, the deposition of PW-1 regarding the fact of the offending vehicle being driven by the respondent no. 1 on the wrong side of road, remained unchallenged/ unrebutted on behalf of respondent no. 1and 2 and the said fact is rather corroborated from the site plan filed by the IO alongwith the DAR.
18. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Narayan Singh (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC Act by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Petitioner in his evidence has also placed reliance on the DAR, which include the report u/s 173 Cr. PC filed by IO in FIR No 553/2018 PS Ranhola, site plan of the accident, MLC of injured, seizure memos of vehicles, its documents, mechanical inspection report of the vehicles, notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply etc. Same also points out towards the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1 and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent.
19. The respondent no. 1 Narayan Singh has also examined himself in respondent evidence, however, he has failed to bring on record any cogent material to show that the accident in question occurred due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner / biker. Rather in his affidavit Ex.RW1W2/A, he deposed that on 17.09.2018, the accident of motorcycle SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:15 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 31 DL4SCL7580 did not occur with tanker bearing No. HR55S- 7530 rather it was caused by some other vehicle and that he was not driving the aforesaid vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Meaning thereby, he himself is not disputing the factum of accident, his presence at the spot at the time of accident in question and driving of aforesaid vehicle by him. Further, the testimony of PW-1 that the aforesaid tanker (offending vehicle) was coming from the wrong side of the road, which is further corroborated by the site plan filed by the IO alongwith DAR, also established that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on the wrong side of the road and collided with the motorcycle of the petitioner from the front side, which itself goes to show that the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and which caused the accident in question. Plea of the respondents that it was petitioner who was negligent due to which accident caused, has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence.
20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that he had sustained injuries in road accident which took place on 17.09.2018 at about 2 pm at Najafgarh-Nangloi Road, near Bakkarwala Mor, Ranhola, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Accordingly, issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioner. ISSUE No.2
21. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioner is entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:24 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 31 Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
22. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR
755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:31 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 31 matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
23. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the 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 the 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 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:38 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 31 injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
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.
(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 to 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 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:45 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 31 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.
24. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
Medical Expenses:
25. PW-1 i.e. the injured himself, has inter alia deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that after the accident, he was rushed to Rathi Hospital, Ranhola, Delhi wherein, he was medically examined vide MLC No. 271/2018; that thereafter, he remained admitted in VMCC and Safdarjung Hospital from 18.09.2018 to 27.09.2028 and thereafter, he was also admitted in DDU Hospital from 03.03.2019 to 04.03.2019. He also deposed that he incurred an amount of Rupees more than one lakh for medicines. He filed and relied upon copy of discharge summary and medical treatment paper which are Ex.PW1/2 (colly) and medical bills Ex.PW1/3 (colly). Further, in order to corroborate some of his medical bills, he has also got examined PW-2 Mr. Rajiv Chaudhary, Medical Record Clerk from Rathi Hospital, who deposed that the computer generated medical bills for Rs.14,000/- Ex.PW2/B were issued by Rathi Hospital. There is nothing material elicited from the cross examination of PW1 or PW2 to impeach their credibility or to cast any doubt over the veracity of the aforesaid medical bills. It may be noted here that the petitioner/injured has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs. 35,468/- in all (which are part Ex. PW1/3 Colly). It is quite evident that respondents have not disputed the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:53:53 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 31 authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 35,468/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Criteria for determining the income of the Petitioner
26. PW-1 has inter alia deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he was working private job / AC repairing and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsels for the respondents, he admitted that he has not filed any document in respect of his employment and earning at the time of accident. He denied that he was not doing any work at the time of accident. Thus, admittedly, there is no document placed and proved on record by the petitioner to prove his employment and monthly income. No other witness was examined in order to prove his employment as well as alleged monthly income. Petitioner is a resident of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioner with regard to his actual monthly income, this Tribunal assesses the income of the injured to be at parity with minimum wages of unskilled person in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 17.09.2018 was Rs.13,896/- per month. Loss of income during treatment period
27. Petitioner / PW-1 has deposed that he suffered huge financial loss due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. After the accident, petitioner / injured was rushed to Rathi Hospital, Delhi, wherein he was medically examined vide his MLC No. 271/2018 and thereafter, he was taken to VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18.09.2018 for the purpose of his treatment and discharged on 27.09.2018. He was again admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi on SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:04 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 31 03.03.2019 and discharged on 04.03.2019.
28. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner / injured was assessed 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb vide disability certificate dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Medical Board, Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi, which is Ex.PW3/A. Hence, keeping in view of the medical treatment record, nature of injuries and duration of the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for a period of about 06 months. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant compensation of sum of Rs. 83,376/- (Rs. 13,896/- x 06) to the petitioner under this head towards loss of income during treatment period. Compensation on account of loss of future earnings due to permanent disability
29. Coming now to the question of permanent disability, petitioner has relied upon the disability certificate Ex.PW3/A issued from Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and as per the disability certificate, the petitioner's permanent disability has been assessed as 38% in relation to his left lower limb.
30. PW-3 Dr. Naresh Chandra, Specialist Grade-1, HOD/ Orthopedics, Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi deposed that as per disability certificate Ex. PW3/A, the patient suffered 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He further deposed that on account of disability sustained by the petitioner, he would have slight difficulty in climbing stairs, walking on slope and more difficulty in sitting cross leg and squatting on floor.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08
16:54:11 +0530
MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024
Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 31
31. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or by a rickshaw puller may be an end of road for his earning capacity, in comparison to a person who does some desk work in office. There is no doubt to the legal proposition that the evidence on the record is to be assessed, for the purpose of ascertaining the functional disability of the petitioner on account of medical permanent disability to assess how much the medical disability adversely affected on the functional capacity of the petitioner/injured so that just and fair amount of compensation can be ascertained under the heading of future loss of earning. In the present case, it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained by petitioner in an accident, he suffered 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Now question arises how much 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb has effected on the functional ability of petitioner.
32. It came in the deposition of PW-1 that before the accident, he was an energetic and dynamic person and maintaining good physique. He has also deposed that he was working as private job / AC repairing and due to the accident, he has incurred huge expenses on medicines etc. and suffered huge economic loss due to the permanent disability caused to him. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsels for the respondent no. 3, he denied that he did not suffer any financial loss due to the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:18 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 31 accident in question.
33. The disability certificate of injured would reveal that he had suffered 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. It is quite obvious that for any type of work including the work as mentioned by the petitioner, 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb suffered by the petitioner would certainly affect his functional ability to a great extent due to this accident. Even if in the absence of any cogent evidence of income and vocation, when the income of the petitioner has been assessed at parity with minimum wages rates of unskilled person in the State of Delhi at the time of accident, 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb, would certainly have adverse impact on functional ability of any person. It would certainly affect his functional ability in any work/ business/profession/job, which he would intend to do as per his choice at any time in future in his life. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material placed on record including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, this Tribunal assess the functional disability of the petitioner to the extent of 19% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.
34. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer:
Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. As per the Aadhar card of petitioner Ex. PW1/1, date of birth of petitioner is 27.11.2000. As such age of petitioner as on date of accident i.e. 17.09.2018 was about 17 years 10 months. As such multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 18 as applicable to age group between 15-20 years, as per settled SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:25 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 31 principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner being 17 years 10 months of age at the time of accident, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be counted.
35. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 13,896/- + 40% (Rs. 5,558.40/-), total Rs. 19,454.4/- (Rs. 13,896/- + Rs. 5,558.40/-). Thus applying the functional disability to be 19% of Rs. 19,454.4/-, amount comes out to be Rs.3,696.33/-. As such the total loss of earning capacity in future income due to disability comes out to be Rs.3,696.33/- X 12 X 18 = Rs. 7,98,407/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 7,98,407/- is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head. Special Diet, Conveyance Charges & Attendant Charges:
36. Petitioner (PW1) in his evidence by way of affidavit deposed that he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- on special diet, a sum of Rs.30,000/- on conveyance and he kept an attendant at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month upto 08 months and paid Rs.64,000/- as attendant charges. In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not filed any document qua his claim of attendant charges and conveyance charges. Though petitioner has proved on record his medical bills, but no documentary evidence in the form of bills of transportation, special diet and attendant charges has been placed on record to substantiate his claim that SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:39 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 31 he has incurred any expenses towards conveyance, special diet and on attendant. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner had spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant. However, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries and disability in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would also 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 the absence of any such documentary proof, this Tribunal while taking into consideration period of hospitalization of petitioner, seriousness of injuries suffered by him as well as his regular follow up with the concerned hospital, finds it appropriate to grant compensation for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards special diet and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges to the petitioner. Pain & Sufferings
37. 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 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:47 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 31 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".
38. Petitioner/Injured has deposed that he suffered great pain and suffering due to this accident. Petitioner / injured had sustained multiple injuries including permanent disability due to the accident in question. After the accident, he was rushed to Rathi Hospital, Nangloi, Ranhola, Delhi; thereafter, he was taken to VMMC and Safdarjung hospital, where he remained admitted from 18.09.2018 to 27.09.2018 and again he was admitted in DDU hospital for the period from 03.03.2019 to 04.03.2019. He also suffered 38% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Ocular testimony is duly corroborated with the medical treatment record [which are Ex. PW1/2(colly) and Ex.PW1/3(colly)] 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, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Manjeet Singh & Ors bearing MAC.APP. 359/2009 decided on 10.04.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Compensation towards loss of amenities of life
39. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:54:55 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 31 evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries due to the accident in question. He has also sustained permanent disability of 38% in relation to his left lower limb, which is duly established from the disability certificate (Ex. PW3/A) issued by Guru Gobind Singh Govt. hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Manjeet Singh & Ors bearing MAC.APP. 359/2009 decided on 10.04.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Compensation towards disfiguration
40. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts, the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner including the permanent disability of 38 % in relation to his left lower limb and material placed on record as discussed herein before, I finds it appropriate to grant compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of disfiguration.
41. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
S Heads of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Medical expenses Rs. 35,468/-
2 Loss of income during Rs. 83,376/-
treatment period
3. Compensation on account of Rs. 7,98,407/-
loss of future earning due to
permanent disability
4. Special diet Rs. 25,000/-
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08
16:55:02 +0530
MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024
Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 31
5. Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/-
7. Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/-
8. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
9. Disfiguration Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. 11,37,251/-
42. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled comes to Rs. 11,37,251/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty One Only).
INTEREST ON AWARD
43. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 29.04.2019 till realization.
LIABILITY
44. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3 has sought to avoid his liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. HR55S7530 was driving the aforesaid vehicle without valid permit, without valid driving license for transportation of hazardous goods and also on the ground that petitioner, who was minor on the date of alleged accident, was driving the motorcycle without any valid driving license and without wearing helmet. Respondent no3/Insurance company has examined one witness viz R3W1 Sh. Raj Kumar, Assistant, National Insurance Company Limited in respondent evidence and relied upon copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC and copy of insurance policy.
45. So far as the plea of the insurance company regarding the driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:55:09 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 31 HR55S7530 by its driver (i.e. respondent no.1 Narayan Singh) without valid permit and without valid driving license for transportation of hazardous goods, is concerned, the same per se is not found sustainable in view of the verification report filed by the IO alongwith the DAR regarding the verification of driving license of the respondent no.1 from the RTO, licensing authority, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, which is EX. RW2/4 as well as verification report of the valid National Permit (Ex. RW2/3) and certificate of fitness Ex. RW2/2. Moreover, certificate Ex.RW1W1/6 issued by Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida to the respondent no.1 Narayan Singh for transportation of hazardous goods is also proved by the witness i.e. RW1/W1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Field Executive from Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida. Thus, the aforesaid documents duly corroborates the fact that respondent no.1 had taken the necessary training for driving the vehicle having hazardous goods and the said certificate was valid at the time of accident.
46. Moreover, respondent no. 1 Sh. Narayan Singh also examined himself in respondent evidence as RW1/W2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1W2/A wherein, he deposed inter alia that he was having valid driving license w.e.f. 15.04.2002 to 07.10.2018 issued by Haldwani, RTO which has been verified by the IO of this case; that he had undergone training programme for driving the vehicle with hazardous goods as per CMV-1989 Rule 9 from Om Sai, Motor Driving Training School, Noida for the period from 04.07.2018 to 06.07.2018 valid upto 05.07.2019 and possessed the valid certificate of driving the vehicle with hazardous goods, although the vehicle was empty at the relevant time. He has also relied the aforesaid SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:55:20 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 31 documents i.e. copy of insurance policy, copy of certificate of fitness, verification report of permit of the offending vehicle, driving license and the copy of national permit. Interestingly, he was not even cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/insurance company despite opportunity given.
47. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, it is established that R1 was having valid and effective DL in respect of offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Likewise, there were vaild permit and fitness certificate in respect of offending vehicle bearing No. HR55S7530 as on the date of accident in question. Hence, it is held that there was no breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. respondent no. 2.
48. Now, coming to another limb of argument on behalf of respondent no.3/Insurance company, whereby it sought to avoid its liability to the extent of 50% to pay the compensation amount on the ground that there was no valid DL in favour of injured, who was driving the aforesaid motorcycle at the time of accident in question and without wearing helmet.
49. Ld. Counsel for petitioner repelled the aforesaid contention on the ground that neither there was any contributory negligence on the part of injured nor any evidence has been led by insurance company in this regard. He further argued that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of driver of a vehicle Tanker bearing No. HR55S7530. He therefore, urged that no amount should be deducted on account of alleged contributory negligence.
50. The onus to prove the aforesaid plea of contributory negligence was upon insurance company which was required to SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:55:29 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 31 prove the same by leading cogent evidence on this issue. However, it failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that there was rashness or negligence on the part of injured while driving the motorcycle or that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident.
51. The mere fact that in the instant case injured was not holding a valid driving licence is ipso-facto not sufficient to hold that accident had either taken place due to the negligence or contributory negligence of injured. It has already been established on record that petitioner/injured had sustained injuries in road accident which took place on on 17.09.2018 at about 2 pm at Najafgarh-Nangloi Road, near Bakkarwala Mor, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1, who hit the petitioner's motorcycle, while coming from wrong side of the road. There is no evidence on record to show that injured was driving the motorcycle rashly or negligently. Merely because injured/petitioner was not holding any DL at the time of accident, would not be sufficient to deduct any amount on account of contributory negligence on his part. While saying so, I am also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as " Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors.", IV (2008) ACC 770 (SC). Hence, the contention raised on behalf of insurance company in this regard, is hereby rejected. 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. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08
16:55:37 +0530
MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024
Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 31
52. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 11,37,251/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty One Only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e. 29.04.2019 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.3/insurance company. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner. Disbursement of Award Amount
53. Statement of petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 31.01.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 2,37,251/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty One Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Only) along with the interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) 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 and subject to the following directions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:55:45 +0530 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 29 of 31 accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant 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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant 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 issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
54. Respondent no.3 i.e. National Insurance Co. Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.02.08 16:55:52
+0530
MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024
Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 30 of 31
2,37,251/- in the aforesaid saving bank account of
claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
55. 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 State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
56. Form XVI and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
57. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
58. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
59. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 16:55:59 +0530 Date: 2024.02.08 Announced in the open court (SACHIN GUPTA) On 8th February, 2024 PO-MACT-02(WEST) THC/Delhi/08.02.2024 MACT No. 280/2019 Date of Award: 08.02.2024 Trun Vs. Narayan Singh & Ors. Page No. 31 of 31