Delhi District Court
In Re vs Sh. Akash (Driver) on 11 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA:
ADJ-1+ PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT: NORTH WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
UID No./CNR No. DLNW01-004942-2017
MACT CASE No. 461/17
In Re :
Sh. Jitender Kumar
S/o Sh. Kalu,
R/o Jhuggi No. B-632,
Indira Camp, Sec-3,
Near Jaipur Golden Hospital,
Delhi.
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Akash (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raju,
R/o Jhuggi No. D-144,
GP Block, Pitampura, Delhi
2. Smt. Raj Bala, (Owner)
W/o Sh. Phool Kumar,
R/o- D-199, GP Block
Pitampura, Delhi-110088
3. The New India Insurance Co. (Insurer)
Office at :- 185, SPS Building,
Anna Salal, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600002
.......... Respondents
Date of institution of the DAR : 16.05.2017 Date of assignment to this Court : 10.09.2018 Date of Arguments : 05.04.2019 Date of Decision : 11.04.2019 APPEARANCE (s): Sh. Avnish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for R-1 Sh. Lakhan Singh, Ld. counsel for R-2.
Sh. Rishi Kumar, Ld. Counsel for insurance Co.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.1 /26FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 01.01.2019) TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
1. Date of the accident 25.03.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.05.2017 investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 16.05.2017 investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 __ Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 16.05.2017 Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 16.05.2017 Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 16.05.2017
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR __ removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or DAR was filed late by deficiency on the part of the Investigating the IO.
Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 02.06.2017 Officer by the insurance Company.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.2 /2613. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Ajay Sharma, AO, the Designated Officer of the Insurance M/s. The New India Company. Assurance Ltd.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted No the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No. No action warranted deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Offer not filed by the the offer of the Insurance Company. insurance company.
18. Date of the Award. 11.04.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the 25.03.2019 direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced 05.04.2019 the passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above. Claimant(s).
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.3 /2624. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the address of the bank Sh. Jitender is having with IFSC Code. saving bank account bearing no.
3871537508, State Bank
of India, branch
Pushpanjali Enclave,
Delhi. IFSC code no.
SBIN0016238.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number, MICR number, IFSC PNB, Prashant Vihar Code, name and branch of the bank of Branch, Delhi. IFSC the Claims Tribunal in which the award code- PUNB0416600. amount is to be deposited/transferred. MICR Code-110024221 MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.4 /26 PETITION UNDER SECTION 166 & 140 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION JUDGMENT / AWARD:-
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall conscientiously dispose of the DAR filed by the investigating agency which has been treated as a claim petition U/s 166 (4) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation.
2. The brief material facts relevant to decide the present claim petition are that on 25.03.2017 at about 11:15 a.m., petitioner/injured was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8S-AT-2417 towards Sec-7, Rohini, Delhi and when he reached in front of Police Station South Rohini, one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBM-5771, which was being driven by driver/R-1 in a very high speed, rash and negligent manner came from M2K side and hit the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, thereof, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and was shifted to Dr. B.S.A Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, where the doctor has medically treated him vide MLC No. 3798/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner took treatment from Sunrise Hospital, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. The police authorities have lodged a case against the respondent no. 1 for the alleged accident vide FIR No. 58/17, U/s 279/338 IPC dated 27.03.2017 with P.S. South Rohini and separate Kalandras were prepared against the respondent no. 1 and 2 for the MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.5 /26 offences U/s 3/181 & 146/196 of M. V. Act,1988 for the offence U/s 5/180 of M. V. Act, 1988, respectively.
3. Respondent no.1 did not file his reply/WS. Respondent no.
2/owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SBM-5771 filed her reply thereby denying the averments of the claim petition. She further contented that no accident was caused by the alleged vehicle and the petitioner falsely implicated her motorcycle in the present case. It has further been contended that even otherwise the answering respondent is not liable for any compensation since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
4. Respondent no.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed its WS/reply averred that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with it and the policy No. 71070131160350061263 and valid from 28.04.2016 to 27.04.2017. It has further been contended that respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding DL to drive the said vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore not liable to pay any compensation on account of breach of policy.
5. On perusal of the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed by the tribunal on 21.08.2017: -
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.6 /26ISSUES.
1. Whether on 25.03.2017 at about 11:15 a.m., on road in front of PS South Rohini, Sec-3, Rohini, Delhi driver namely Akash S/o Sh.
Raju was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBM-5771 in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of petitioner/injured and caused injury to Sh. Jitender?OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3. Relief.
6. To substantiate his claim, petitioner Sh. Jitender Kumar examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents: -
S. Description of documents Remarks
No.
1. Copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/1
2. Copy of Charge sheet Ex. PW-1/2
3. Copy of MLC Ex. PW1/3
4. Medical bills Ex. PW1/ 4 (colly.)
5. Copy of Aadhar card Ex. PW1/5
6. Copy of high school certificate Ex. PW1/6
7. In rebuttal, R-1 and R-2 did not lead any evidence while respondent no. 3 examined one witness Sh. Ajay Sharma, Assistant Manager, M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. as R3W1 who relied upon the following documents: -
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.7 /26 S. Description of documents Remarks
No.
1. Policy of the offending vehicle Ex. R3W1/1
2. Notice U/O XII rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/2
3. Postal receipts Ex. R3W1/3 & Ex.
R3W1/4
respectively
4. Kalandara filed against R-1 & R-2 U/s Ex. PW1/ 5
3/181, 146/196 and 51/180 of M. V.
Act, 1988.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at the length and perused the record including the pleadings and the documents. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the same. The issue wise determination is as under:-
9. ISSUE NO.1 "Whether on 25.03.2017 at about 11:15 a.m., on road in front of PS South Rohini, Sec-3, Rohini, Delhi driver namely Akash S/o Sh. Raju was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBM-5771 in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of petitioner/injured and caused injury to Sh. Jitender?OPP"
10. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was on petitioner who has examined himself as PW-1 and in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR/claim petition. He deposed about the mode and the manner in which the accident has taken place resulting into grievous injuries to him.
11. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company Ltd. In his cross examination, MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.8 /26 he deposed that on the date of the accident, he was wearing helmet and was driving his motorcycle with following traffic rules. He further deposed that neither he has any medi-claim policy nor he got reimbursed the medical bills. He also admitted that he has no other bills except the bills which he placed on record. He also admitted that he has no proof of his income as working with Shiv Mohan Band. Though, his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/-. He admitted that he is twelfth passed. He denied that the accident in question has taken place due to his own negligence.
12. In rebuttal, R-1 and R-2 did not lead any evidence. However, respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Ajay Sharma, Assistant Manager, M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1 who in his testimony deposed that at the time of the accident, the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL and IO has invoked the sections 3/181 M. V. Act,1988 against him and U/s 5/180 of M. V. Act, 1988 against respondent no. 2/owner of the offending vehicle and filed Kalandaras before the concerned court of Ld. Magistrate against them for the aforementioned offences. The witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for R-1 and R-2 as none has appeared on behalf of them despite repeated calls. Therefore, the testimony of R3W1 remained unrebutted, before the tribunal.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.9 /2613. It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holdings a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just, Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore Vs. S.S Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943. Hon'ble Apex court held " that tribunal exercising Quasi-Judicial function are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts"
14. In Bimla Devi and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that " In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
15. In N.K V. Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Supreme Court has reminded the Claim Tribunals stating as MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.10 /26 follows:
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This pro-verbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases bases on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
16. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 58/17, U/s 279/338IPC, PS South Rohini, Delhi (Ex. PW-1/1) was registered with regard to the accident in question. Record further shows that the FIR was registered on 27.03.2017, just after one day of the accident and that too on the statement of the petitioner. The Medico Legal Report bearing no.3798/17 (Ex. PW-1/3) of the petitioner Jitender Kumar (duly verified by the IO) clearly shows that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on account of alleged road traffic accident (hit by offending motorcycle). The mechanical inspection report and the site plan filed on record along-with the DAR clearly shows that the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle of the injured/petitioner bearing no. DL-8SAT-2417 at the crossing which clearly leads to the fact that it was driven on high speed and hit the petitioner causing injuries. This clearly reflect that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL- 8SBM-5771 was driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.11 /2617. Furthermore, the identity of the respondent no. 1 who was driving the offending vehicle on the particular date and time of the accident has been established by the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. issued by the IO to the respondent no. 2 for producing documents or articles. Even, respondent no. 1 & 2 have neither stepped into the witness box and stayed away from the proceedings nor they have cross examined PW-1. In such circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Even, the testimony of PW-1 who has deposed on oath that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 1 has remained intact and without any dent during cross examination. All this cumulatively proves that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into grievous injuries to petitioner Sh. Jitender Kumar on the aforesaid date, time and place.
18. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 "Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP"
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal stricto sensu.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.12 /2620. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in injury cases has been laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors that: -
" The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages".
21. It has been further held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
"the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle of just compensation has held the same to be a challange a warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise holding that neither the sentiments nor emotions may play a role but the fundamental principle of just compensation needs to be inhered. It has been further held that the MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.13 /26 compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
23. The petitioner Sh. Jitender Kumar has suffered grievous injuries on account of the alleged accident which has adversely affected not only his day to day avocation but also loss of general amenities and even long pain and sufferings. As such he is entitled to be restituted by way of just and reasonable compensation which under the various heads is determined as under:-
MEDICAL EXPENSES
24. PW-1 Sh. Jitender Kumar, petitioner has deposed in his testimony that after the accident, he was taken to Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He deposed that he spent Rs. 42,217/- towards treatment and medicines. He further deposed that he again spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment when rod from his leg was removed. He has placed on record the medical bills of Rs. 40,000/- (Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.) duly verified by the IO which shows that a total sum of medical bills was of Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, this tribunal awards a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) Only under the head medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
25. PW-1, petitioner himself has deposed in his testimony by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 that he had sustained grievous injuries due to the MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.14 /26 accident in question and his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by medical record (Ex. PW-1/4 Colly.) and MLC Ex. PW-1/3. Said treatment record would show that he had suffered grievous injuries. Thus, he would have undergone sufficient physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Considering the medical record and the nature of injuries suffered by injured Sh. Jitender Kumar, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) Only towards pain and suffering to the petitioner/injured.
SPECIAL DIET & NUTRITON
26. In the present claim petition, there are sufficient material on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the accident. The injured/petitioner remained hospitalized for some time and has taken medical treatment for quite some time. The petitioner without doubt needed sufficient nutrition in order to ensure his good health. The petitioner must have taken special protein rich diet which might be continued even after his discharge from the hospital. Hence, Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only is awarded under the head of Special diet and nutrition.
CONVEYANCE & ATTENDANT CHARGES
27. Although, PW-1 petitioner/injured, has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record to show that how much amount had he spent on account of conveyance and attendant but taking into account the condition of the petitioner as well as the medical record, he might have incurred expenses towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular checkup and follow up MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.15 /26 during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) Only for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) Only (Rs. 3,000/- per month at least for two months) for attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
28. The petitioner has claimed that he was working with Shiv Mohan Band, Sec-7, Rohini and was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and he was also earning Rs. 7,500/- p.m. as a part time work in delivery of organic cow milk. Neither he filed any record to show that how much amount he actually was getting from employer. However, he has placed on record the certificate of 10 th class. In these facts and circumstances, this tribunal is left with no other yardstick to determine the monthly income of the petitioner except on minimum wages basis and accordingly consider the income of petitioner to be Rs. 16,182/- (minimum wages of skilled person prevailing at the time of accident) per month.
29. Taking into account the testimony of the petitioner, entire medical records including hospitalization and Medico Legal Report, which are sufficient to prove that the petitioner might have not perform her job at least for two months due to the accident in question, this tribunal awards a sum of Rs. 16,182X2= 32,364/- to the petitioner under this head.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.16 /2630. Thus the total compensation is accordingly assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 40,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
3. Special diet and nutrition Rs. 10,000/-
4. Conveyance and Attendant Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 6,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs. 32,364/-
Total Rs. 1,23,364/-
(Or say/ rounded of Rs. 1,23,500/-) This issue is decided accordingly Liability
31. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation and to what extent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. vide policy no.
71070131160350061263 and valid from 28.04.2016 to 27.04.2017 and the respondent no. 1 at the time of accident was not holding a valid driving license and insurance company sent a notice U/o XII rule 8 CPC (Ex. R3W1/2) to respondent no. 2 for producing all the relevant car papers through postal receipts Ex. R3W1/3 to 4. Further the Kalandra prepared by the IO against respondent no.2 in this regard got exhibited on record as Ex. R3W1/5. All this proves that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving license (DL) at relevant time. The insurance policy is not disputed by any of the respondents. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, the MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.17 /26 insurance company is, thus, liable to indemnify the insured u/s 149(1) of MV Act and hence, liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal in favour of petitioner. However, since a breach has been committed in respect of policy conditions, the insurance company are at liberty to recover the compensation amount from R-1 and R-2, who are liable, jointly and severely.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
32. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 1,23,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred) Only, including interim award, if any, along-with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner and against respondents (to be indemnified by the insurer New India Assurance Company Ltd.) w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/petition i.e. 16.05.2017 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
APPORTIONMENT
33. Examination of petitioner to ascertain his financial condition/needs, mode of disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposits in terms of clause 26 (now clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 05.04.2019. The Bank Manager of the concerned bank where the petitioner has opened her MACT Claims SB Account was also directed not MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.18 /26 to issue any cheque book (s) or Debit Card/ATM Card against the said account and shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner to this effect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present claim petition and in view of said statement of the injured/petitioner and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, It is hereby ordered that Rs. 50,000/- be released to injured/petitioner Sh. Jitender Kumar through his saving bank account no. 38371537508, State Bank of India, branch Pushpanjali Enclave, Delhi (IFSC Code- SBIN0016238) and rest of the amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD). In case, the MACAD Scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be converted into FDR's of Rs. 20,000/- each for the period of six month, one year, one and half year and so on so forth having cumulative interest in the name of petitioner.
34. Petitioner is at liberty to submit his Form 15G and 15H whichever is applicable directly to the Office of Insurance Company for exemption from TDS as per law. Accordingly, the award amount with interest, is directed to be deposited by R-3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. in Punjab National Bank, Prashant Vihar, Delhi initially which shall then transmit the amount in MACAD account of the petitioner for maximum benefit of interest.
DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE 31 OF MCTAP
35. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.19 /26 (MACAD) Scheme formulated by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO 842/2003 titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir & Ors." However, till the time MACAD scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposit may be opened subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the saving bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the bank in their safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioners.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as stipulated aforesaid.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by electronic clearing system (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant (s) as mentioned aforesaid.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the tribunal.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to 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 freeze debit card (s) issued in respect of the account of the claimant (s).
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.20 /26 sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
36. The respondent no. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with this Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant (s) with a copy of their counsel within 30 days of the award. The names and address of the claimant is mentioned at page No. 1 of this award and the name and address of his counsel is as under:-
Sh. Avnish Kumar Sharma, Advocate Chamber No. 731, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54.
37. It is made clear that at the time of deposit of award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the Case No., title of the case, date of award and the name of the court on the backside of the cheque and the insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award, attested by its own officer, to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank. The Manager concerned of the bank is directed to comply the award and further directed to release the award amount to the petitioner through bank account. Till the amount is released through the said account, the concerned banks shall keep the money in FDR's to avoid any loss of interest.
38. R-3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days after sending notice of deposit to the petitioner.
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.21 /2639. Copy of this judgment/award be given to petitioner and counsel for R-3 for compliance. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DSLSA as per clause 35 (ii) and 36 of MCTAP.
40. Copy of this award be also sent to the Nodal Officer PNB, through e-mail ID i.e. [email protected] & [email protected] in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in case FAO No. 842/03 titled "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir & Ors.
41. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. However, separate miscellaneous file be prepared for compliance of award in terms of clause 34 of MCTAP which is to be put up by Nazir of the tribunal along-with his report on 10.05.2019 Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 11.04.2019.
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA) ADJ-1 + MACT (N/W), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.22 /26 FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident: - 25.03.2017
2. Name of injured:- Sh. Jitender Kumar.
3. Age of the injured:- 22 years.
4. Occupation of the injured:- Petitioner/injured was working with Shiv Mohan Band, Sec-7, Rohini, Delhi.
5. Income of the injured:- Rs 16,182 /- per month.
6. Nature of injury:- Simple.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:- Petitioner/injured was admitted in Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not filed any document in this regard.
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details: - No.
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 40,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 6,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity ----
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 32,364/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require any --
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.23 /26
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and --
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life --
(iv) Disfiguration --
(v) Loss of marriage prospects --
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and --
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning --
capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X% --
Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,23,364/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.24 /26
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 21,140.87
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,44,504.87
18. Award amount released Rs.50,000/- to the
petitioner Sh. Jitender
Kumar through his saving
bank account.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 94,504.87
20. Mode of disbursement of the award
It is hereby ordered that
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29)
Rs. 50,000/- be released to
injured/petitioner Sh.
Jitender Kumar through his
saving bank account no.
38371537508, State Bank
of India, branch
Pushpanjali Enclave, Delhi
(IFSC Code-
SBIN0016238) and rest of
the amount be kept in
Motor Accident Claims
Annuity Account (MACAD).
In case, the MACAD
Scheme has not become
fully operational in the
concerned bank, till the
time the same becomes
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.25 /26
fully operational, the
remaining amount be
converted into FDR's of Rs.
20,000/- each for the
period of six month, one
year, one and half year and
so on so forth having
cumulative interest in the
name of petitioner.
21. Next date for compliance of the 10.05.2019
award. (Clause 31)
(MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA)
ADJ-1+MACT(N/W),
Rohini Courts, Delhi
11.04.2019
MACT No. 461/7 Jitender Kumar Vs. Aakash & Ors. Page No.26 /26