Delhi District Court
Nazima vs . Rashish & Ors on 23 March, 2022
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD MATTER
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
NAZIMA VS. RASHISH & ORS
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15)
Nazima
D/o Sh. Mohd. Abdul Hakim
R/o G604, Shakurpur,
Saraswati Vihar,
North West Delhi,
Delhi34
......Petitioner/Injured
Versus
1. Rashish
S/o Sh. Zahur Ahmed
R/o 225, Ward No.7,
Mehrauli Near Dargah,
New Delhi110030
2. Sh. Arjun Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Sanohi Lal
R/o E1/95, E BlockIV,
Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.1 of 25
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
1305, Nehru Place,
New Delhi
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 20.08.2015
Date of framing of issues : 23.09.2015
Date of concluding arguments : 23.03.2022
Date of decision : 23.03.2022
AWARD/JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present petition relates to injuries and physical disability suffered by petitioner/claimant in a road accident that took place on 03.12.2014, at about 10:15 hours on Outer Ring Road, Ber Sarai Flyover, Opposite CNG Pump, Munirka, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR bearing no.1404/14, under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Vihar. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a Gramin Sewa (Mahindra Champion) bearing registration no. DL2W0079, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by R1 (respondent no.1), owned by R2 (respondent no.2) and insured with R3 (respondent no.3).
2. The case of claimant, briefly stated, is that on the above said date, time and place of accident, claimant was standing at Bus Stand near CNG Petrol Pump, Munirka, New Delhi. All of a sudden the driver of DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.2 of 25 Gramin Sewa bearing No. DL2W0079, who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant Nazima. That due to the impact, the claimant fell down and became unconscious. The claimant received grievous injuries. The petitioner was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre by the police. The said Gramin Sewa at the relevant time of accident was admittedly owned by R2 and insured with R3.
3. No written statement was filed on behalf of R1 and R2. They also stopped appearing and vide order dated 18.12.2015, they were proceeded with exparte.
4. R3/Insurance Company had, however, filed its reply to the claim petition and in the said reply they had admitted the issuance and existence of a valid policy of insurance by them in respect of the above offending vehicle. They also submitted that their liability to pay compensation to petitioner was only as per the terms and conditions of said policy.
5. On 23.09.2015, following issues were framed by this tribunal for disposal of the petition:
1. Whether the injureds Ms. Ramhlunei (injured in suit no.D275/15), Ms. Nazima (injured in suit no.D 276/15) and Sh. Rohit Jain (injured in suit no. D 277/15) sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.12.2014 a about at about 10:15 AM at Outer Ring Road, Ber Sarai Flyover, Near CNG Pump, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DL2W0079 being driven by Sh. Rashish, DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.3 of 25 owned by Sh. Arjun Singh and insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 19.05.2016, the Medical Superintendent of Dr. RML Hospital was directed to constitute a medical board to examine the claimant/petitioner and to determine her permanent disability arising out of injuries suffered by her. Vide report dated 13.10.2016 given by the Medical Board, it was reported that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb being an old treated case of left tibial plateau fracture having decreased range of motion of left knee.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner and counsel for R3/insurance. The case record has also been perused. My findings on the above issues are as under : ISSUE No. 1
8. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.4 of 25 civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is in fact even lesser than that in a civil case.
9. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others, 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
10. The petitioner in support of her case examined herself as PW1. She exhibited her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/1. She exhibited the DAR as Ex.PW1/A, medical bills of Rs.36,000/ as Ex.PW1/B (colly), bill for the attendant for Rs.35,000/ as Ex.PW1/C (Colly), medical record including prescriptions as Ex.PW1/D (colly) and disability certificate as Ex.PW1/E. Further to prove her income and consequent loss, she exhibted her salary slip as Ex.PW1/F, copy of marksheet of BPP Programme as Ex.PW1/G and I card of PC Training Institute as Mark A.
11. The petitioner examined Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain as PW2 in support of the disability certificate, who deposed that two screws have been fixed as implant and the patient would have difficulty in sitting cross leg or squating. She cannot run and that she would not be able to bend her knee DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.5 of 25 beyond 105 degrees.
12. It has been observed that the deposition made by PW1 regarding the manner of accident have gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted because she was hardly cross examined by any of the respondents and the cross examination was limited to place of accident and whether the victim was on the road, as also, where she received her subsequent treatment. In these circumstances, it can safely be concluded that her medical bills etc., salary slip, I card, Marksheet have all not been probed or questioned even a bit in the evidence and can be treated as proved.
13. Moreover, the oral testimony of petitioner is also found substantiated from records of the criminal case, which have been filed with the DAR and have not been challenged or disputed on behalf of the respondents. These documents not only consist of copies of the FIR and chargesheet of the said case, but also copies of the site plan, seizure memos and mechanical inspection report as well as copy of MLC of petitioner and arrest memo of R1 etc. These documents clearly show that the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner in above accident was declared as grievous and R1 has already been chargesheeted in the above criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for causing grievous hurt on the petitioner by his rash and negligent driving of Gramin Sewa and the same in itself is a strong circumstance to corroborate the testimony of petitioner on above aspects.
14. Apart from above, R1 was the best witness who could have DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.6 of 25 challenged or controverted the testimony of this witness by deposing on record about manner of the said accident, but as already discussed, he had not even cross examined the petitioner despite opportunity. Hence, an adverse inference can also be drawn against the respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
15. Therefore, in view of the above, it is held that oral evidence led on record by the petitioner on this issue is duly substantiated by the documentary evidence and it stands proved by the principle of preponderance of probabilities that the above accident resulting into injuries on the person of petitioner took place due to rash and negligent driving of the above offending taxi bearing no. DL2W0079, which was being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3 at the relevant time of accident. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries and disability suffered in above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.7 of 25 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as nonpecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the nonpecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.8 of 25 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995, SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011)1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. In her above affidavit Ex.PW1/1, the petitioner has tendered on record her medical bills of approximately Rs.36,000/ which have not been probed or questioned. It has been observed that all these bills and receipts produced by her on record are in consonance with her treatment record and nature of injuries suffered by her in the above said accident and hence, she is being awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/ towards her medical expenses.
(ii) Loss of actual earnings
20. As stated above, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries resulting into 10% permanent physical disability in the above accident. The petitioner has tendered on record her treatment record as Ex. PW1/D (colly), DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.9 of 25 as also her disability certificate as Ex.PW1/E. The MLC of the victim indicates that she was not fit for statement at the time of admission. As per discharge summary, she had moderate head injury alongwith the fracture of tibial plateau and remain in the hospital from 03.12.2014 to 05.12.2014. Further, her surgery was also conducted at Behl Hospital on 09.03.2015 with discharge on 11.03.2015, at least, 6 months would have been required for complete recovery from the date of accident.
21. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/1, she has claimed that she was on bed rest for about 7 months and that treatment was ongoing. That she was working with MAS Brands India Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 874, Second Floor, Krishna Temple, Indranagar, Banglore having a branch at Kirti Nagar. No cross examination was carried out at this aspect and considering her salary slip Ex.PW1/F, she was getting a net pay of Rs.10,661/ less deductions on account of PF and ESI. Considering that the injury itself might have caused loss of income for about 6 months, taking her income as approximately, Rs.11,000/ per month, she is awarded a sum of Rs.66,000/ under the said head.
(iii) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. The nature of injuries suffered by petitioner as well as the extent and duration thereof have already been discussed in detail. It has also been stated above that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent physical disability in the accident.
23. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to permanent DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.10 of 25 disability and determination of functional disability etc. was well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it was held as under : "4..........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 tribunal 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 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 enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as mush as he used to earn or could have earned as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Thus tribunal has to assess whether the petitioners suffered loss of future earning on account of permanent disability."
"6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a humanbeing. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.11 of 25 be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation''.
"8.......What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently 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)."
24. Coming back to the present case, in order to prove the disability of petitioner, the petitioner has examined on record PW2 Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain whose testimony has already been discussed. Considering that the patient cannot bend fully nor can she sit cross leg and considering her DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.12 of 25 vocation, her functional disability is taken as 10%, i.e. equivalent to the disability mentioned in the disability certificate. Her date of birth as per Ex.PW1/H is 18.12.1987 and therefore, going by this document, her age at the relevant time of accident, i.e. 03.12.2014, comes to about 26 years, 11 months and 15 days. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of 17 is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of her above disability.
25. Further, the petitioner is also held entitled to 40% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Bajaj Alliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors., MACA 858/15 decided on 19.07.2017 and Faiyaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Chandra Pal Singh & Ors., MACA No.351/17 decided on 08.08.2017 as well as in the Constitution Bench Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as she was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident and her job was not permanent in nature.
26. Thus, the loss of future earnings and prospects caused to the petitioner due to her above injuries and permanent disability comes to DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.13 of 25 Rs.3,14,160/ (Rs.11,000/ X 10/100 X 140/100 X 17 X 12) and the said amount is being awarded to him under this head.
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities.
27. As discussed above, the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the above accident and 10% permanent physical disability and her functional disability has also been taken by this tribunal to be the same. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries and disability, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.40,000/ each is being awarded to him towards mental and physical shock & pain and sufferings and besides this, an amount of Rs.20,000/ is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered during the said period of her treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/ under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
28. In her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner is silent with regard to the amounts spent towards conveyance and special diet. Still this tribunal can take notice of the fact that she would have travelled to and fro for the purposes of treatment on several occasions and hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/ towards the requirement of conveyance and an amount of Rs.
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.14 of 25 6,000/ per month for six months towards special diet for her early recovery from the injuries suffered because of above accident is being granted to the petitioner. Besides above, an amount of Rs.6,000/ per month for six months is also being granted to him towards attendant charges or for the gratuitous services rendered by her family members during the period of hospitalization and immobility. Therefore, a total amount of Rs.82,000/ is being awarded to him under this head.
Issue No.3/Relief
29. The petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs. 5,98,160/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty) along with interest. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE
30. Out of the awarded amount, 70% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 passed in the said DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.15 of 25 case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account bearing no. 38439297796 being maintained at State Bank of India, Shakurpur, Delhi having IFS Code No. SBIN0004835. The remaining 30% amount is directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner.
31. To facilitate deposits in the above scheme and disbursement of the awarded amount, the petitioner shall also open a savings bank account in the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, if not opened earlier.
32. The above disbursement to the petitioner is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposits proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any.
33. The bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of the petitioner i.e. the above account (s) of the petitioner shall be individual account (s) and not a joint account (s).
34. The original fixed deposits be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioner and the above amounts shall be released in account of the petitioner by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
35. The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.16 of 25 TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the petitioner.
36. No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on MACAD without permission of the Court.
LIABILITY
37. The Insurance Company in written statement has taken a defence that the the driving license of R1 was black listed/suspended on the date of accident. In order to prove the same, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company had prayed for calling the report from the Transport Authority, Sheikh Sarai regarding the driving license of R1 and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2016. On 29.07.2016, Sh. H.S. Panwar, Head Clerk from Sheikh Sarai Transport Authority had appeared before this tribunal along with verification report of driving license of R1 and he was examined as court witness by this tribunal. In his examination in chief, he deposed that he has brought the verification report of driving license which is Ex. CW1A (colly). He deposed that as per record, the said license was valid w.e.f. 26.09.2012 till 25.09.2015 for transport vehicle and the said license was black listed w.e.f. 26.09.2014 on recommendations of Delhi Traffic Police and finally the said license was suspended for a period of three months from 24.11.2015 to 23.02.2016 after surrendering the same by the holder. During cross examination, the witness deposed that the holder of blacklisted driving license is authorized to drive a motor vehicle during the blacklisted period until the same is suspended. He further deposed that the license of R1 was DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.17 of 25 not suspended at the time of accident, i.e. 03.12.2014 and he was authorized to drive the transport vehicle on the date of accident.
38. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has given up the above defence in view of examination of above witness as court witness. Hence, there is no defence on behalf of Insurance Company.
39. Though all the respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner, but since R3 has failed to prove any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of R2, R3 is directed to deposit the above award amount with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner within 90 days from today failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, R3 fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the insurance company with a cost of Rs.5,000/.
40. R3 shall inform the petitioner and her counsel through registered posts that the cheque/DD of the awarded amount is being deposited so as to facilitate him to collect her cheque/DD.
41. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.18 of 25 Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
42. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
43. The particulars of FormV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 15.12.2017, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 03.12.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigation Officer to the Not given Claims Tribunal.
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Not given Insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the Not given Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Date of filing of Details Accident Report (DAR) by the Investigating 20.08.2015 Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6. Date of service of DAR on the do Insurance Company.
7. Date of service of DAR on the do claimant(s).
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.19 of 25
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects?
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR No
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes documents file with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the DAR has been filed after 8 Investigating Officer? If so, whether months of accident any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Not given Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Not given Insurance Company.
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his No report within 30 days of the DAR?
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance No Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant(s) of Legal offer not filed.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.20 of 25
18. Date of the award 23.03.2022
19. Whether the award was passed with No the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes account(s) near their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank 29.03.2019 not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place 23.08.2019 of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o G604, Shakurpur, Claimant(s) Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, Delhi34
24. Details of savings bank account (s) of Bank's Name & Address the claimant(s) and the address of the State Bank of India, bank with IFSC Code. Shakurpur Branch, Delhi Account Holder's Name Ms. Nazima Account No. DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.21 of 25 38439297796 IFSC SBIN0004835 PAN No. AFEPN3486L
25. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near her place of Yes residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of Yes the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
44. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary formalities. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 08.07.2022.
Announced in the open court (Harjyot Singh Bhalla) on 23.03.2022 PO/MACT, New Delhi
Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.22 of 25 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORMXVI
1.Date of accident : 03.12.2014
2.Name of the injured : Nazima
3.Age of the injured : 26 years, 11 months and 15 days
4.Occupation of the injured : Pvt. Job
5.Income of the injured : Rs. 11,000/ per month.
6.Nature of injury : Grievous
7.Medical treatment taken by the injured : AIIMS Trauma Centre & BEHL Hospital
8.Period of hospitalization : As stated above
9.Whether any permanent disability? : 10% permanent physical disability
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads Amount awarded
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 36,000/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 36,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 36,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.66,000/
(vii) Any other loss which may require Nil any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Nonpecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.40,000/ physical shock DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.23 of 25
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships,disappointment,frustrati on, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 10% permanent physical and nature of disability as disability permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 10% functional disability
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income Rs.3,14,160/
14. Total Compensation Rs.5,98,160/
15. Interest Awarded 6% pa from date of filing of
DAR till deposit in 90 days
and 9% after 90 days.
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.2,36,674.70
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.8,34,834.7/ (rounded off
to Rs. 8,35,000/)
18. Award amount released 30% of the amount
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.24 of 25
19. Award amount kept in the FDRs/ 70% of the amount
Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of the Through bank
award amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 08.07.2022
award
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
23.03.2022
DAR No. 13/16 (Old No. 276/15) Page no.25 of 25