Delhi District Court
Sh. Ramesh Chand Arora (Injured) vs 'R' (Ccl) (Driver) on 1 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 550/2021
CNR No. DLCT010089082021
Sh. Ramesh Chand Arora (Injured)
S/o Late Sh. Daulat Ram Arora,
R/o 7/7, South Patel Nagar,
3rd Floor, New Delhi110008.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. 'R' (CCL) (Driver)
Sh. Sh. Kalu Ram
R/o H. No. 3033/3, Gali No.21,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sanjay (Onwer)
S/o Sh. Dharampal,
Ro H. No. 3033, Gali No. 21,
Ranjit Nagar, Delhi.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Block No. 4,
7th Floor, DLF Towers,
15 Shivaji Marg, New Delhi110015.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 15.07.2021
Arguments heard on: 30.03.2022
Date of passing of Award: 01.04.2022
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021
Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 1 of 22
JUDGMENT:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on 15.07.2021 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition in respect of the accident which took place on 07.11.2020 at 11:15 AM in front of House No. 7/16, South Patel Nagar, Delhi wherein the injured/ petitioner Ramesh Arora sustained Grievous injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 07.11.2020 the petitioner/ injured Ramesh Chander Arora a resident of 7/16 South Patel Nagar, New Delhi was going on foot and at about 11:00 AM while he was passing in front of House No. 7/16, South Patel Nagar, a scooty bearing registration No. DL 10 SY 3457 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Shiv Chowk side and hit Ramesh Chander Arora. As a result of the same Ramesh Chander Arora sustained grievous injuries and was treated at Nijhara Hospital, South Patel Nagar and BLK Hospital.
(3) The FIR in the present case was got registered on the basis of statement of eye witness namely Jasmeet Singh a resident of 7/16, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi who informed the Investigating Officer that the driver of the aforesaid scooty was one 'R' (name of the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle is withheld being a minor/ CCL). (4) The respondent no.1 'R' and respondent no.2 Sanjay have not filed their reply/ written statement to the DAR despite repeated opportunities in Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 2 of 22 this regard. Smt. Reeta mother of the respondent no.1 'R' and the respondent no.2 Sanjay have vide their separate statements recorded on 22.11.2021, expressed their desire not to file any written statement/ reply to the DAR.
(5) In so far as the respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. is concerned, they have filed a detailed reply to the DAR wherein it is conceded that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL10SY3457 (Scooty) was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of alleged accident in favour of Sh. Sanjay vide policy No. 0G20 1149182600004273 issued for the period 17.07.2019 to 16.07.2024 for the third party liability and for the period 17.07.2019 to 16.07.2020 for the own damage liability. It is further pleaded that the liability of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company is subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as well as to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. It is further pleaded that after the alleged accident, the criminal case was registered by the police against the driver of the insured vehicle namely 'R' under Section 279/338 IPC and he was challaned by the police under Section 3/181 of M.V. Act as he was minor at the time of accident and was not holding a valid and effective driving license while driving the insured vehicle bearing registration No. DL10SY3457. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.2 owner/ insured has also been challaned by the police under Section 5/180 of M.V. Act by allowing the respondent no.1, who was his nephew, to drive the insured vehicle being a minor and also not holding a driving license. It is pleaded that the Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 3 of 22 respondent no.2 who was the owner of the vehicle in question has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by allowing the respondent no.1 to drive the insured vehicle without holding a valid and effective driving license and according to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent no.3, a person holding a valid and effective driving license was only authorized to drive the insured vehicle i.e. DL10SY3457. It is pleaded that in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the respondent no.2, owner/ insured, the respondent no.3 Insurance Company has no liability to pay any amount of compensation to the claimant or to indemnify the respondent no.2 owner / insured of the vehicle.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(6) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed by this court, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the injured / petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora has sustained Grievous injury in the road traffic accident which had taken place on 07.11.2020 at 11:15 AM in front of H. No. 7/16, South Patel Nagar, Delhi, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL 10SY3457 driven by the respondent no.1 'R'?
(OPP)
ii. Whether injured / petitioner is entitled to compensation? If
yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
iii. Relief.
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 4 of 22 EVIDENCE:
(7) Perusal of the record reveals that after settling the issues on 22.11.2021 the case was listed for Petitioner's Evidence. However, neither any list of witnesses nor any affidavit of evidence has been filed by the petitioner. Keeping in view the same, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by this Court/ Tribunal vide order dated 02.03.2022. Since the petitioner has failed to lead his evidence, the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company also closed the evidence of the Insurance Company in affirmative.
(8) Here, I may clarify that the issues were shortlisted and settled in view of the fact that the petitioner and the respondents were not adidem. An opportunity was given to all the litigating parties to bring on record the material upon which they are relying for justifying their respective claims which was in the nature of a Summary Inquiry. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 become relevant wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had specifically directed that it is duty of the Tribunal to enquire and satisfy itself relating to the real accident and that the accident is not a result of any collusion or fabrication of an accident and for the said purpose each Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedures as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has been further observed that many Tribunals instead of holding inquiry into the claim by suitable summary procedure as mandated by Sections 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, tend to Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 5 of 22 conduct motor accident cases like regular civil suits which should be avoided. In fact the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are very specific to the effect that the Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditiously disposal of the applications for compensation and made effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act to determine the just compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court also directed the Insurers to assist the Tribunal to verify the correctness with regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependents of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(9) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and gone through the documents placed on record. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the injured / petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora has sustained Grievous injury in the road traffic accident which had taken place on 07.11.2020 at 11:15 AM in front of H. No. 7/16, South Patel Nagar, Delhi, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL 10SY3457 driven by the respondent no.1 'R'? (OPP) Issue No.2: Whether injured / petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP) (10) Both the issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the petitioner.
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 6 of 22 (11) The case of the petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora is that on 07.11.2020 he was going on foot and at about 11:00 AM while he was passing in front of House No. 7/16, South Patel Nagar, a scooty bearing registration No. DL 10 SY 3457 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Shiv Chowk side and hit him. As a result of the same the petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora sustained grievous injuries and was treated at Nijhara Hospital, South Patel Nagar and BLK Hospital.
(12) In so far as the respondent no.1 'R' (Minor) and respondent no.2 Sanjay are concerned, they have not filed their written statements to the DAR.
(13) In order to discharge the onus upon him, the petitioner has not examined any witness despite opportunity in this regard. Neither any list of witnesses filed nor any affidavit of evidence filed nor the petitioner had appeared before this Court/ Tribunal to examine himself. In fact the petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora has appeared before this Court/ Tribunal only once i.e. on 15.07.2021 when the DAR was filed and thereafter he never appeared before this Court. On 15.07.2021 the petitioner had informed the Court that he wanted to settle the matter as he has a difficulty in coming to the Court on which the parties were directed to finalize the talks of settlement between them. Thereafter the petitioner never appeared before this Court nor there is any information with regard to the settlement between the petitioner and the respondents. Rather, the petitioner has abandoned the proceedings. This being the background, I now proceed to decide the issues on the basis of material available on record. My Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 7 of 22 findings are as under:
(14) Coming FIRST to the Identity of the respondent no.1 'R' as the Driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing registration No. DL 10SY3457, I may note that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of Sh. Jasmeet Singh who is a resident of same area i.e. 7/16 South Patel Nagar, New Delhi where the accident had taken place. He has specifically informed the Investigating Officer that while Sh.
Ramesh Arora a resident of 7/7, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi was going in front of his about, a scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit Sh. Ramesh Arora who fell down on the road. According to Sh. Jasmeet Singh he helped Sh. Ramesh Arora and took him to his house where as the driver of the scooty was apprehended at the spot who disclosed his name as 'R' (minor) and had left the spot after some time along with the scooty. The respondent no.1 'R' (minor) has nowhere claimed that he was not driving the scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457 at the time of accident. In fact, during investigations a notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act was issued to the registered owner of the scooty bearing No. DL10SY 3457 namely Sh. Sanjay who in response to the same disclosed that on 07.11.2020 it was 'R' who was driving the scooty at the time of accident. (15) Further, in the Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle i.e. Scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457 the following fresh damages were noted:
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 8 of 22 i. Head light visor left side scratched.
ii. Left side brake lever and body beading scratched. iii. Front left side body scratched.
(16) The above mechanical inspection report reveals that there are fresh damages on the left side of the scooty meaning thereby that the motorcycle had fallen down on its left side. The said Mechanical Inspection Report has gone uncontroverted and the respondent no.1 'R' has failed to explain the fresh damages on the scooty. This Mechanical Inspection Report which has gone uncontroverted confirms and establishes the identity of 'R' as the driver of the offending vehicle. (17) SECONDLY in so far as the Rashness and Negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 'R' is concerned, I may note that the present FIR bearing No.550/2021 was registered at Police Station Ranjeet Nagar under Section 279/337 IPC on the basis of statement of the eye witness Jasmeet Singh who informed the Investigating Officer that the accident in question was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457 by 'R' whom he had apprehended at the spot but let him go after the injured went to his home. Thereafter, the statement of injured/ petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora was also recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he also claimed that the accident was caused by 'R' who was driving the scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457.
The statements of both Jasmeet Singh and Ramesh Chander Arora recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are on record but Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 9 of 22 but neither Jasmeet Singh nor the petitioner/ injured Ramesh Chander Arora have appeared before this Tribunal to prove the allegations of rashness and negligence attributed to the respondent 'R'. (18) LASTLY in so far as the aspect of Injuries caused to the injured Ramesh Chander Arora is concerned, I may note that the petitioner has not placed on record any medical documents/ bills which is despite the fact that a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to him by the IO ASI Ramesh Chandra to produce his medical bills and treatment papers on which the injured gave a statement to the IO to the effect that he will produce all his document to the Court/ Tribunal through his counsel, which has not been done. However, the copies of medical documents collected by the IO during investigations are on record and I may observe that the MLC No. 58/2021 prepared at Nijhara Hospital, South Patel Nagar, Delhi forms a part of the DAR, according to which the injured was brought to the hospital by his wife Smt. Harvinder Arora with a history "..... being hit by unknown vehicle car/ motorcycle near Hanuman Chowk today 7.11.2020 around 11:30 AM and patient came walking from site of injury to his house....". On examination, there was blunt injury on head and lower back and the patient was not fit for statement. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the BLK Hospital where he received treatment for the injuries. The copy of Discharge Summary of the injured is present on record which reveals that the petitioner was diagnosed with moderate head injuryLeft Temporal Contusion with left basifrontal contusion with dorsal D8 vertebral wedge fracture. As per the opinion given by the doctor concerned, the nature of Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 10 of 22 injuries are Grievous in Nature and it is this document which establishes that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question.
Provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act not established - Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act invoked:
(19) In the light of my discussion as above, particularly on account of the injured having failed to join the inquiry, I hereby hold as under:
➢ That the Scooty bearing No. DL10SY3457 was being driven by 'R' (respondent no.1) of which Sanjay (respondent no.2) is the registered owner when the accident took place with the pedestrian Ramesh Chander Arora.
➢ That in the accident the injured Ramesh Chander Arora had sustained Grievous Injuries.
➢ That the Rashness and Negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 'R' does not stand established.
(20) On the face of it, the Rashness and Negligence attributed wholly to the respondent no.1 'R' does not stand established though in the said accident the injured Ramesh Chander Arora sustained grievous injuries involving the Scooty bearing registration No. DL10SY3457 driven by respondent no.1 'R'. Hence, in the interest of justice, the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act are hereby invoked. (21) The petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora has failed to appear in the court and also failed to lead his evidence. On the very first date i.e. Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 11 of 22 15.07.2021 when the injured Ramesh Chander Arora appeared in the Court, he expressed his desire to settle the matter and also expressed his difficulty in coming to the Court upon which this Tribunal/ Court had granted opportunity to the parties to finalize their settlement and inform the Court failing which it was directed that this Tribunal would proceed further.
However, the petitioner stopped appearing thereafter. Even the respondents no.1 and 2 have stopped appearing after 22.11.2021 and it has been noticed that only Sh. M. Awasthi Advocate is appearing for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. There is non appearance on the part of the injured Ramesh Chander Arora and default on his part to justify his claim by his non appearance. It was in this background and in the interest of justice, this Tribunal invoked the provisions of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. I may note that vide S.O. 3147 (E) dated 30.08.2019 the provisions of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act along with the Second Schedule stand deleted but since the notification is yet to be given effect, I proceed under Section 163A the Motor Vehicles Act.
(22) Now coming to the quantum of compensation, I may observe that vide Gazette Notification bearing No. S.O.2022 (E) dated 22.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, the compensation payable in case of death and injuries have been assessed. The Second Schedule under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced as under:
Schedule for Compensation for Third Party Fatal Accidents/ Injury cases claims:
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 12 of 22
1. (a) Fatal Accident:
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees.
(b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability:
Compensation payable shall be = [Rs.5,00,000/ X percentage disability as per ScheduleI of the Employee's Compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923)];
Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.
(c) Accidents resulting in minor injury:
A fixed compensation of twenty five thousands rupees shall be payable.
2. On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019, the amount of compensation specified in the clause (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually.
3. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
(23) There is nothing on record to show that the injured Ramesh Arora had suffered any Permanent Disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. However, it stands established that the injured/ petitioner had suffered Grievous Injuries and hence, I hold that the fixed compensation of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner.
(24) In the present case since the entire claim petition has gone in default for the failure of the claimant/ injured Ramesh Chander Arora to effectively Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 13 of 22 contest and has been awarded compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act invoked by the Tribunal itself hence, interest at the rate of Six Percent is being awarded from the date of award till deposit of the same.
Disbursement:
(25) The petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora has not appeared to get his Financial Statement recorded and hence, it is clarified that the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner after after he gets recorded his Financial Statement.
(26) Considering the quantum of amount, on realization of the award amount, the entire award amount plus interest be released to the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 decided on 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, the entire amount shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
It is made clear that the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner only upon compliance of the aforesaid. (27) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021, Summary of the Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 14 of 22 Award in the prescribed FormatXVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 07.11.2020
2. Name of the Injured: Ramesh Chander Arora
3. Age of the Injured: 65 Years
4. Occupation of the Injured: No Proof
5. Income of the Injured: No Proof
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken by Nijhara Hospital and the injured: BLK Hospital, Delhi
8. Period of Hospitalization: 7.11.2020 to 21.11.2020
9. Whether any permanent Nil disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Under Section 163A
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no of Motor Vehicles document) Act
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant (no document) Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 15 of 22
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Under Section 163A shock of Motor Vehicles Act
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(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 Under Section 163A nature of disability as permanent or of Motor Vehicles temporary Act
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.50,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% from the date of award till deposit
16. Interest amount upto the date of award Nil Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 16 of 22
17. Total amount including interest 50,000/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para 26
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para 26
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para amount of the claimant(s) 26
21. Next date for compliance of the award 29.04.2022 Liability:
(28) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, the case of respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. is that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no.1 'R' was a minor aged Seventeen Years and Three Months at the time of accident i.e. 07.11.2020 and was not holding any driving license on the date of accident.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that since there is a willful violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act/ Rules on the part of the owner/ insured as well as the driver and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
(29) I have gone through the documents on record along with the DAR and it is evident from the same that during investigations the age of the respondent no.1 'R' was found to be 02.07.2003 (copy of birth certificate of the respondent no.1 'R' has been placed on record). Accordingly, he was aged about 17 years and 3 months at the time of accident and hence, the Investigating Officer has filed the chargesheet before the Juvenile Justice Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 17 of 22 Board and apart from the provisions of Section 279, 338 IPC the provisions of Sections 3/181, 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act were also invoked against him.
(30) From the above it becomes crystal clear that the respondent no.1 'R' being a minor was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle which tantamounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Being the driver the respondent no.1 'R' was not supposed to drive the scooty without a valid and effective driving license. The respondent no.2 Sanjay being the owner of the offending vehicle, was not supposed to allow the respondent no.1 to drive the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the insurance Company is entitled for recovery rights qua them but after satisfying the award amount. (31) The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 'R' (Minor) and respondent no.2 Sanjay is the registered owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Therefore, both respondent no.2 Sanjay and respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner/ injured. However, after satisfying the award, the Insurance Company shall have a right to recover the award amount from the respondent no.2 Sanjay during execution proceedings without filing a separate civil suit. (32) Both the issues are accordingly disposed off.
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 18 of 22 RELIEF:
(33) The respondent no.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till deposit with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(34) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days.
(35) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. for compliance within the time granted.
Respondent No.3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest, with a copy to the petitioner Ramesh Chander Arora Mob. No. 9958730520.
(36) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 29.04.2022 in the event of nonreceipt/ deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 19 of 22 (37) A copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(38) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 01.04.2022 PO (MACT)01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 20 of 22 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 07.11.2020 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being a case of Report (FAR) 2020 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Applicable being a case of victim(s) 2020 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Not Applicable being a case of Driver 2020 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Not Applicable being a case of Owner 2020 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being a case of Accident Report (IAR) 2020 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form Not Applicable being a case of VIB from the Victim(s) 2020 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail 15.07.2021 Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction No warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company 06.08.2021 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 21 of 22 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No Legal Offer given by the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance company 14 Date of award 01.04.2022 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were 15.07.2021 directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank The claimant did not produce his account(s) near the place of their residence Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Bank alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and PassBook. Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the As per Award claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Bank details of the petitioner/ account(s) is near their place of residence? claimant are not provided by the petitioner/ claimant.
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at The petitioner did not appear for the time of passing of the Award to recording his Financial Statement ascertain his/their financial condition? (claim petition gone in default and in the interest of justice, the provisions of section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act were invoked by this Tribunal).
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 01.04.2022 Ramesh Arora Vs. 'R' (Minor) & Ors. MACT No. 550/2021 Judgment dated 01.04.2022 Page No. 22 of 22