Delhi District Court
Dar-Deepak Verma vs Guru Prakash on 3 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. TARUN SAHRAWAT
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors.
MACT no. 181/2020
Deepak Verma (Injured)
S/o Sh. Nand Lal
R/o 1/3372, Gali no.5, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi. (Mobile Phone no. 9643642832) ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Guru Prakash (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Choudhary
R/o House no.6. Chaugurji, Etawah, U.P.
(Mobile Phone no.7838064383)
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
5th Floor, Community Centre, 502, 504, 506, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058.
Also at: Plot no. C-9, 3rd Floor, Pearl Best Heights-II,
Netaji Subhash Palace, Pritampura,
New Delhi-110034. .......Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.09.2020
Date of Arguments : 01.11.2023
Date of pronouncement : 03.11.2023
AWAR D
1. The present DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed by the Investigating Agency in respect of the bodily injuries sustained by the petitioner/ injured Deepak Verma in a motor vehicular accident occurred on ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 1 of 19 29.01.2020. The DAR has been treated as claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the injured.
2. Briefly stated the facts as emerged from the DAR are that on 29.01.2020 at 07:45 a.m., the petitioner was commuting to his workplace on his motorcycle bearing no. DL5SBS-9632 and when he reached at Ginger Hotel Red Light within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar and was crossing the said Red Light, all of a sudden, a white colour car bearing registration no. UP75X-2829 (in short "offending vehicle") came at fast speed from Vivek Vihar side and hit his motorcycle with a great force and fled away. As a result, petitioner fell down on road and sustained injuries. The petitioner was immediately taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi, where her MLC was prepared and FIR no. 43/2020, under sections 279/337 IPC was lodged at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi on his statement. After completion of the investigation, DAR was filed by the Investigating Officer submitting that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was being driven and owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 at the time of accident.
3. In response to the notice of DAR, both the respondents marked their appearance. Respondent no.1 filed reply to the DAR whereas, insurance company/ respondent no.2 filed legal offer of Rs.57,000/- for settlement of the case, which was not accepted by the petitioner and matter was proceeded on merits.
4. Upon completion of pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the issues on 23.11.2021 as under:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 2 of 19
i). Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 29.01.2020 at 07:45 a.m. at Ginger Hotel Red Light, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. UP75X-2829, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
ii). Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
iii). Relief.
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself and one doctor as witness as under:-
(i) PW1 Deepak Verma, the petitioner deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the manner of accident, injuries suffered, treatment taken, medical expenses incurred and other losses suffered due to accident and relied upon the following documents:-
• The DAR as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
• Original treatment record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly). • Original medical bills as Ex.PW1/3 (colly). • Copy of Aadhaar Card and PAN Card as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) (colly).
• Education Certificate as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
• Copy of treatment record as Mark-A (colly).
(ii). PW2 Dr. Sanjeev Gambhir, Specialist Orthopedics, LBS Hospital, Delhi proved the disability certificate of petitioner as Ex.PW2/A and relevant assessment sheet as Ex.PW2/B to show that petitioner suffered 5% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb.
6. No evidence was adduced by the respondents and thereafter, the evidence was closed in the matter.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 3 of 19
7. I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. I also perused the evidence and other material placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 :
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 29.01.2020 at 07:45 a.m. at Ginger Hotel Red Light, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. UP75X- 2829, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP In the instant case, I may note that respondent no.2/ insurer had submitted a legal offer of Rs.57,000/- for settlement of this claim case. It is pertinent to mention here that as per directions given in Form-II of the new Scheme for Motor Accident Claims, formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 08.01.2021 in FAO 842/2023, Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaibir Singh & Ors., in case the amount offered by the insurance company is not acceptable to the claimant, the Claims Tribunal shall straightaway hear the arguments qua quantum of compensation and pass an award and therefore, no findings are required to be given by the Tribunal on issue no.1.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
8. Section 168 of Motor 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 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 4 of 19 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).
9. The present claim petition pertains to injury and 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 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."
10. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 5 of 19 343, 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 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.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 6 of 19 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 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."
In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
11. Petitioner (PW1) has placed on record bills of implants, folding walker and investigation, amounting to Rs.2,310/-, Rs.2,625/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.300/-, respectively. These bills are in original and found in order and have not been challenged by the respondents on any count. Hence a total sum of these bills, amounting to Rs.5,835/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of earning during treatment:
12. The MLC of petitioner prepared at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi, which is part of DAR Ex.PW1/1 (colly) reflects that petitioner sustained ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 7 of 19 grievous injuries in the RTA (road traffic accident) occurred on 29.01.2020. Further, the treatment record Ex.PW1/2 (colly) shows that petitioner remained admitted in Dr. Hedgewar Hospital from 01.02.2020 to 19.02.2020 and again remained admitted in the said hospital from 23.01.2021 to 02.02.2021. Treatment record reflects that he made a number of visits to the OPD of said hospital till 25.03.2021. Also, I may note that even after completion of treatment, the injuries suffered by the petitioner resulted into 5% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb as per disability certificate Ex.PW2/A, issued on 02.02.2022. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injury and the period of treatment, it may be safely assumed that petitioner must not have been able to do any work for at least six months after the accident and therefore, he is entitled to be compensated for the said period.
13. The petitioner (PW1) deposed that he was a working as a Security Guard and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has not placed on record any document in support of his claim qua salary of Rs.25,000/- per month but he has proved the copy of his School Leaving Certificate as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), which shows that he had studied upto class-VIII and as per his aadhaar card Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), he was resident of Delhi and therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of his income, his income is required to be assessed at par with minimum wages of non-matriculate category of workers of Delhi on the date of accident (29.01.2020), which were Rs.16,341/- per month.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company argued ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 8 of 19 that salary of petitioner is mentioned as Rs.9,000/- per month in the DAR, which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself as Ex.PW1/1 (colly) in his evidence and therefore, monthly income of petitioner be considered Rs.9,000/- per month only.
15. I have perused the cross-examination of petitioner (PW1) wherein he was confronted with the DAR and police record wherein his salary was mentioned as Rs.9,000/- per month. However, witness denied the same and stated that he had told the police that his salary was Rs.15,000/- per month. Also, the petitioner (PW1) clarified that he received salary of Rs.15,000/- after deduction from Metro Hospital, Preet Vihar, Delhi. Thus, it is evident that as per admitted version of petitioner, he was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month apart from some amount as deductions from his job of Security Guard. In the circumstances, in order to assess the income of petitioner more precisely, this Tribunal is of the opinion that his income may be determined on the basis of minimum wages applicable to non-matriculate workers of Delhi at the time of accident, which were Rs.16,341/- per month. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.98,023/- (Rs.16,341x6) on account of loss of income during treatment.
Loss of future earnings due to disability :
16. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 9 of 19 the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) Whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities of the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 10 of 19 also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
......If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of loosing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above:
(i). All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii). The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 11 of 19 To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii). The doctor who treated an injured- claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv). The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
17. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, petitioner suffered 5% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was engaged at the time of accident.
18. Now it is required to be seen that upto what extent the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner would impact his work so that a just and reasonable compensation may be granted to him under this head. I may note that PW2 Dr. Sanjeev Gambhir stated that disability suffered by the petitioner is permanent in nature and for doing his daily needs work, he will face a little bit difficulty. Hence, it may be safely inferred that with the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 12 of 19 above 5% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb, the petitioner is definitely bound to suffer to some extent in performing the activities relating to his job/ work. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered as 5%.
19. 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]. The petitioner has placed on record copy of his Aadhaar Card (Ex.PW1/4), which shows his date of birth as 22.09.1993, which would mean that he was 26 years of age on the date of accident (29.01.2020) and thus, multiplier of 17 as applicable to age group between 26 to 30 years, would be applicable as per settled 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 as self-employed, who belonged to age below 40 years, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be taken into consideration.
20. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been assessed as Rs.16,341/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 17 and future prospects @ 40% with 5% loss of income on account of whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would come to ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 13 of 19 Rs.2,33,349/- [5% of (16,341x140/100x17x12)] and same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet & Conveyance Charges:
21. Though, the petitioner (PW1) did not lead any specific evidence to claim the expenses spent for high and rich protein diet as well as for transportation charges incurred during treatment, however, the treatment record Ex.PW1/2 (colly) makes it clear that he suffered fracture of both bones left leg. For the treatment of said injuries, he remained hospitalized on two occasions for 19 days and 10 days respectively. During hospitalization, he was operated upon on 12.02.2020 when 'CRIF with ILN (tibia)' was done and again his surgery was conducted on 02.02.2021 during his subsequent hospitalization. Medical record further shows that he also attended OPD of hospital on several occasions till 25.03.2021. Thus, an inference can be drawn that petitioner must have spent a reasonable amount on his special diet for the purpose of early recovery as well as for visiting the hospitals for her further treatment. Therefore, considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards special diet and Rs.15,000/- for conveyance charges would be just and fair compensation to the petitioner. Hence, a total sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Attendant Charges:
22. In view of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, it cannot be ignored that his family members must have spent their considerable time in attending him during his reatment. Moreover, for claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 14 of 19 and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver (Refer : DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries and period of treatment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings:
23. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
"12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment."
24. In the instant case, immediately after the accident on 29.01.2020, the petitioner was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where her MLC was prepared and the injuries sustained by him were opined by the doctor as grievous in nature. As discussed above under the head of 'Special Diet & Conveyance Charges', he was diagnosed to have suffered Grade-I compound fracture of both bones of left leg and for treatment of said ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 15 of 19 injuries, 'CRIF with ILN (tibia)' was done and again his surgery was conducted on 02.02.2021. Thus, it is clear from the record that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the petitioner must have gone through a considerable amount of pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities :
25. It is evident that even after completion of treatment, petitioner was assessed to have suffered 5% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb, which has been considered by this Tribunal as 5% permanent physical disability in relation to whole body. It cannot be ignored that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound to face difficulties to some extent throughout his life. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
26. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
S. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.5,835/-
2. Loss of Income (during treatment) Rs.98,046/-
Loss of Future Income Rs.2,33,349/-
3.
(on account of permanent disability
4. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges Rs.40,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.25,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,27,230/-
Interest on the Award Amount:
27. On perusing the record, it is seen that petitioner has conducted ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 16 of 19 the proceedings diligently and therefore, petitioner is entitled for interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of accident till realization.
LIABILITY
28. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and in this case, insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.2/ insurance company is held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF
29. The petitioners are awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,27,230/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till realization in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no.2/ insurance company. The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code:
UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The insurance company is directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and her counsel.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 17 of 19 Disbursement of Award Amount:
30. A sum of Rs.2,27,230/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 20 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in his name, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be transferred into the petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account, without any further order.
Direction to Petitioner & his Bank:
31. The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the the place of her resident. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions: -
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 18 of 19
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
32. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. Tarun Sahrawat) on 03.11.2023 Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 181/2020, Deepak Verma v. Guru Prakash & Ors. Page 19 of 19