Delhi District Court
Ajay Rawat And Others, Fir No.323/21, ... vs Amit Kumar on 30 November, 2024
Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
DLST010072202022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 301/22
CNR No. DLST01-007220-2022
AJAY RAWAT AND ORS. VS. AMIT KUMAR AND ORS.
FIR NO.323/21 PS Saket
1. Mr. Ajay Rawat
S/o Mr. Anand Singh
R/o H.No. 90, Madangir Village,
New Delhi - 110062.
2. Mr. Ravindra Bisht
S/o Mr. Bir Singh Bist
R/o H.No. 137 Madangir,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi. ....PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Mr. Amit Kumar Nagar
S/o Mr. Nawal Singh Nagar
r/o G-2-51, Madangir,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi. ..driver
2. Ms. Maya Devi
S/o Mr. Ram Bharose
R/o H.No. 73,Prem Gali
Kotla, New Delhi. ..owner
3. GO Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.
New Delhi. ..insurance company
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.1/24
Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
Date of Institution : 22.08.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 30.11.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. These are two claims for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioners namely Amit Rawat and Ravindra Bisht for the injuries suffered by them in a vehicular accident which occurred on 07.11.2021 with respect to which FIR No. 323/21 was registered at Police Station Saket against R-1 Amit Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, owned by Smt. Maya Devi and insured with respondent no. 3/ Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.
2. The IO has filed copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and the charge-sheet in the DAR.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR are that on 07.11.2021 at about 10.30 PM, Mr. Ajay Rawat alongwith his friend namely Ravindra Singh Bisht were going on a scooty bearing no. DL-3SEA-5912 from Malviya Nagar to his home at Madangir. When they were crossing the court chowk and going towards the NBCC Plaza, then a car bearing no. DL-3CCP-7454 came from the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and hit their scooty As a result thereof, the claimant Ajay Rawat suffered 54% permanent physical impairment in respect of his Right Lower Limb.
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.2/24Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 19.11.2022 the injured Ravindra Bisht has settled the matter with the insurance company for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-.
5. Joint WS was filed by the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 stating that no accident with the injured took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Amit Kumar Nagar. The injuries sustained by the injured were due to the rash and negligent driving by other vehicle. No accident took place with the respondent no. 1/ driver or the alleged vehicle and the present case is totally false and fabricated. However, at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the Future General India Insurance Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 06.09.2012 to 05.09.2032. The respondent no. 1 had a valid licence at the time of accident.
6. No statutory defence was raised by the insurance company and legal offer was filed by counsel for the insurance company which was not accepted by the petitioner.
7. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 28.09.2022 following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor :-
1. Whether the petitioners sustained injuries in a road accident on 07.11.2021 at about 10.30 pm near Court Chowk Saket, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration number DL-3CCP-7454 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.3/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
no. 3 ? .. OPP
2. In case, issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative then to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?... OPP
3. Relief.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the court record.
My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 19. In a claim petition, onus is on the petitioner to prove that he or she suffered injuries in the vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner Ajay Rawat examined himself as PW1. In his affidavit filed in evidence Ex.PW1/A, he deposed on the lines of his claim in the DAR. He deposed that on 07.11.2021 at around 10.30 PM he alongwith his friend namely Ravindra were going on a scooty bearing no. DL-3SEA-5912 from Malviya Nagar to his home at Madangir while he was crossing the court chowk and going towards the NBCC Plaza, then a car vide no. DL-3CCP-7454 came from the wrong side and negligently collided with them and ran away from the spot. Thereafter a bystander made a PCR call and they both were taken to Max Hospital, Saket. He was Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.4/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
shifted to Sawan Neelu Angel's Multi Specialty Hospital. Thereafter he went to All India Institute of Medical Science for further treatment. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent no. 1. At the time of accident, he got multiple fractures and was under treatment for long time. He was doing a job at Firstvision Legal Services and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month He has relied upon following documents in support of his contentions :-
• Copy of his aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1. • Copy of his salary slip for the month of August 2021 to October 2021 as Ex.PW1/2.
• Copy of his MLC as Ex.PW1/3.
• Copy of statement of injured as Ex.PW1/4. • Copy of aadhar card of his father Anand Singh Rawat as Ex.PW1/5.
• Copy of aadhar card of his mother Kanti Devi as Ex.PW1/6.
• Copy of aadhar card of his wife Ritika Semwal as Ex.PW1/7.
• Copy of birth certificate of Manvika Rawat as Ex.PW1/8. • Copy of his discharge summary of AIIMS Hospital as Ex.PW1/9.
• Original medical bills as Ex.PW1/10. • His disability certificate as Ex.PW1/11. • Copy of marksheet of 10th class as Ex.PW1/12. • Copy of marksheet of 12th class as Ex.PW1/13. • Copy of marksheet of Graduation as Ex.PW1/14.
The petitioner was cross-examined by Mr. B.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for the insurance company. He admitted that both the vehicles were damaged from the front side. He denied the suggestion that the accident has taken place because of his negligence. He remained at the MAX hospital for 5-6 days. Thereafter he was admitted in Neelu Angels Hospital. He remained in the said hospital for three days. He has not filed any Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.5/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
discharge summary. However, he voluntarily stated that he has filed bills for the said admission and treatment. He has not been refunded medical bills from any source.
11. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Manager in Firstvision Legal Services, employer of the petitioner was examined as PW2. He was the summoned witness. He produced the record of the injured Ajay Rawat i.e. joining letter as Ex.PW2/1, salary slip as Ex.PW2/2 and termination letter as Ex.PW2/3. His authority letter issued from Firstvision legal Services as Ex.PW2/4.
In his cross-examination by Mr. B.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he is the Manager in the abovesaid form and is working with one partner Mr. Ajay Shukla. The authority letter Ex.PW2/4 was issued by Ms. Mansi Khetarpal who is the other partner. In his cross- examination, he has filed joining letter of the injured as Ex.X-1 (colly). He stated that salary of the injured was directly transferred in his account and was also given the cash vouchers. He stated that they are not a registered firm. No ESI or PF facilities are given. They have not given any gratuity. They have not given any leave salary to the injured.
12. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents despite opportunities being given.
FINAL ARGUMENTS :-
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.6/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the criminal record filed by the IO, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who had caused the grievous injuries to the injured by his rash and negligent driving. He contended that the respondent no. 1 was driving his car on the wrong side after crossing his lane. He was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident as per his MLC
14. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has stated that he has no statutory defence in this matter. However, he has contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the injured.
15. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had filed the DAR containing FIR, Charge sheet, site plan, MLC etc. Charge sheet has been filed against the respondent no.1. PW1 Ajay Rawat had categorically deposed about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle was responsible for his injuries finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
16. The IO has filed the chargesheet and the DAR after completion of the investigation. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.7/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
"......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
18. It is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 M V Act. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.8/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
19. DAR and copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under Rule 7 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 unless proved to the contrary. Copies of criminal proceedings filed include FIR, chargesheet, site plan, MLC of the petitioner, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle besides the documents pertains to the offending vehicle. Copies of criminal proceedings filed alongwith it have not been challenged and controverted by any of the respondents.
20. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has clearly deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently. He has narrated the manner in which the accident has taken place. His deposition on this fact has gone unrebutted by respondent no. 1, who has not even cared to cross- examine him on this aspect.
21. Further, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/ driver of the aforesaid vehicle was the material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.9/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioner or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioner is unrebutted and un-controverted. The respondent no. 1 has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication. Insurance company also has not called the respondent no.1 or the IO to prove its case on the manner of accident. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
22. The damages on the offending vehicle were never been explained by respondent no. 1 who has not cared even to contest the claim. From the mechanical inspection report produced on record it is found that there are damages due to accidental impact on the offending vehicle which corroborate the version of the petitioner. The testimony of PW1 is fully corroborated in the investigation conducted by the IO. The respondent no. 1 was under influence of liquor at the time of accident as per his MLC from AIIMS produced with chargesheet. He was driving his vehicle on the wrong side.
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.10/24Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
23. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3CCP-7454 and that the said vehicle at that time was being driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
24. As this Tribunal has already held that it was the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle who was responsible for the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant due to his neglect and default in driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the grievous injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Now, the court has to assess as to how much compensation be awarded to the claimant and by whom? First of all the court has to decide as to whom the liability to pay the compensation is fastened.
25. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, and owned by respondent no.2, so respondent no.1 is primarily liable and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.11/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
26. Let the compensation be assessed which the claimant is entitled for under different heads:
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
27. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.99,606/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment. These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.99,606/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
28. 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 vs. Jai Kisan, 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.
Applying the above criteria to the facts of the present Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.12/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
case where petitioner/injured has suffered 54% permanent physical impairment in relation to his Right Lower Limb and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
29. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to his special diet and attendant charges. However, the petitioner has filed conveyance receipts of Life Express Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. however, the same does not bear the vehicle number. However, considering his medical condition, he must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant.
Looking into the injuries, I award Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner/ injured towards his special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
30. The petitioner/ injured stated that at the time of accident, he was working as a Team Supervisor at Firstvision Legal Services. To prove his contention, he has examined PW2 Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Manager in Firstvision Legal Services who has produced the salary slip and termination letter of the injured as Ex.PW2/2 & Ex.PW2/3. It can not be denied that he was working in the company. The documents produced by the PW2 Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.13/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
employer of the petitioner were not disputed and duly proved. Therefore, after deducting the conveyance and special allowance, Rs.33000/- per month is considered as approximate earning of the injured.
The injuries on the person of petitioner were such that he might have remained out of work for about 8 months. Hence I award a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.33,000/- x 8) towards loss of income during period of treatment.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY
31. The petitioner had suffered 54% permanent physical impairment in respect of his Right Lower Limb. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" :-
"In the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.14/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle- rickshaw-puller.
The question of loss of earning capacity resulting from amputation of one the legs in the case of a tanker driver was considered by this Court in K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2008) 8 SCC 518. In that case, a tanker driver suffered serious injuries in a motor accident and as a result, his right leg was amputated upto the knee joint. He made a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that disability suffered by him as a result of the loss of the leg was 100% and awarded compensation to him on that basis. In appeal, the High Court, like in the present case, referred to the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and held that the loss of a leg on amputation amounted to reduction in the earning capacity by 60% and, accordingly, reduced the compensation awarded to the tanker driver. This Court set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation.
In K. Janardhan this Court also referred to and relied upon an earlier decision of the Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.15/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289, in which a carpenter who suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow was held to have suffered complete loss of his earning capacity.
In a more recent decision in Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered in great detail the correlation between the physical disability suffered in an accident and the loss of earning capacity resulting from it. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment in Raj Kumar, this Court made the following observations:
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. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.16/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.
32. In a very recent judgment announced by the Supreme Court of India in case title Sri Anthony alias Anthony Swamy v. The Manging Director, K.S.R.T.C. on 10.06.2020. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the principles set out for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as mentioned above.
33. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered 54% permanent physical impairment in respect of his Right Lower Limb. Having a disability can make it even harder. In such cases, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be assessed first and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of the Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.17/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
earnings. As a matter of rule half of the disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability, therefore, I take his functional disability as 27%. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.03.1989. The accident took place on 01.12.2020. Hence, he was 33 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '16', the future loss of income comes to Rs.46,200/- (Rs.33,000/- + 33,000 x 40/100) x 12 x 16 x 27% = Rs.23,95,008/- I therefore, award Rs.23,95,008/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
34. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interests, hobbies and evocations.
The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I therefore, award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.99,606/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.2,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs.70,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.2,64,000/-
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.23,95,008/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs.1,00,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.31,28,614/-
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.18/24
Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
=========== RELIEF
35. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.31,28,614/- (Rupees Thirteen One Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fourteen only) to petitioner Ajay Rawat as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till its realization. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs) is directed to be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.40,000/- each. Remaining amount be released to him in his saving bank account near his place of residence.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
36. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
37. The respondent no. 3 is directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch.
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.19/24Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
38. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir alongwith calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
39. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE'(MCTAP)
40. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :-
• The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
• Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity. • No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
• The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. • No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. • Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.20/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
Court.
• On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
• Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
• The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs. • The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period. • The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Saket branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner from this branch, unless ordered by the Tribunal in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 and CM Applications No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. dated 09.03.2018. It is made clear that the amount including the maturity amount of the FDRs shall be released to the petitioner through RTGS/NEFT directly in the personal bank account of the petitioner of the bank nearest to his place of residence, the details of which have been given by the petitioner to the Tribunal and same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY • The Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
• The Respondent no. 3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.21/24 Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
• The Respondent no.3 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
• Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.3.
• The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no. 3 for 16.01.2025.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1) Date of accident : 07.11.2021
2) Name of the injured : Ajay Rawat
3) Age of the injured : 33 years
4) Occupation of the injured : Private
5) Income of the injured : Rs.33,000/- p.m
6) Nature of injury : Grievous Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal 1 Pecuniary Loss :Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.22/24
Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.99,606/- ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.70,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity -
iv Loss of Income Rs.2,64,000/-
v Any other loss which may require any special ----
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life.
2 Non-Pecuniary Loss :
i Compensation for mental and physical shock ---
ii Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- iii Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects ----- v Loss of marriage prospects ----- vi Future Loss of income due to disability Rs.23,95,008/- 3 Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity : (i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature ---
of disability as permanent or temporary
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in ---
relation to disability 4 Contributory negligence ---
5 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.31,28,614/-
6 INTEREST AWARDED: 9% per annum 7 Total amount of interest Rs.1,54,866/-
8 Total amount including interest Rs.32,83,480/- 9 Award amount released Rs.18,83,480/-
10 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.14,00,000/-
Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured and some
amount are directed
to be kept in fixed
Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.23/24
Ajay Rawat and ors. vs. Amit Kumar and ors.
deposit.
11. Next date for compliance of the award. 16.01.2025 Digitally signed Pronounced in the open court sudesh by sudesh kumar on 30th NOVEMBER 2024 kumar Date:
2024.11.30 16:26:52 +0530 (SUDESH KUMAR) Presiding Officer : MACT (S) Saket Courts : New Delhi Petition No. : 301/2022 Page No.24/24