Delhi District Court
Mahesh Rajak ( Dar ) vs Gaurav And Ors. ( Fir No.465/21, Ps. ... on 30 May, 2024
Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR :
PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET
COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 38/2022
CNR No. DLST01- 001591-20200
MAHESH RAJAK VS. GAURAV AND ORS.
Mahesh Rajak
S/o Sh. Dilip Rajak
R/o House number 152, Gadaipur,
Mehrauli, South Delhi - 110030 ....PETITIONER
Versus
1. Gaurav
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan
R/o H.No. S-158/A-46,
Shanti Colony Mandi Phari,
Mandi Village, New Delhi ....driver cum owner
3. M/s HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
New Delhi. ... Insurance company
....RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 25.02.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/
order : 30.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a claim for compensation arising out of the Detailed Accident Report filed u/s 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, qua petitioner Mahesh Rajak for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident MACT No. 38/22 1/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
which occurred on 04.11.2021 with respect to which FIR No.0465/21 U/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 Mv act was registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri and charge-sheet was filed U/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 MV Act against R-1 Gaurav, driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The same is treated as petition under Section u/s 166 and 140 MV Act.
2. The facts as averred in the DAR are that on 04.11.2021 at about 8.45 PM the petitioner Mahesh Rajak was returning from his job at Sitaram Bhartia hospital, Katwaria on his bicycle. When he reached at Riyasat Green Farm house, Sultanpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi, suddenly a bike bearing no. DL-3SEW-9024 which was being driven in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the offending vehicle came and hit the petitioner with a great force. Due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. As a result thereof, the claimant suffered 13% permanent physical impairment in respect of his left lower limb.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 1/driver cum owner appeared at the time of filing of DAR, however has not filed his WS. Warrants of attachment towards the security amount were issued against him but he never deposited the same. Thereafter he stopped appearing before the Court and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.05.2024.
4. The claim petition was contested by the respondent no. 3/Insurance Company by filing a WS inter-alia agitating that the alleged accident has taken place due to sole carelessness and negligence of the petitioner himself by driving the bicycle on the wrong side of the road. It MACT No. 38/22 2/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
is averred that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident in violation of section 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act. Therefore, no cause of action arises against the respondent no. 2/insurance company.
5. After completion of the pleadings, vide order dated 03.08.2022 following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether, injured Mahesh Rajak received injuries in a road accident on 04.11.2021 at Riyasat Green Farm Sultan Pur Mandi Road, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL-3SEW-
9024 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2?...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.
6. 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. 17. In a claim petition, onus is on the claimant(s)/ petitioner(s) to prove that the injured suffered injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. In order to establish his claim, the injured Mahesh Rajak examined himself as PW1. He filed his affidavit in evidence as MACT No. 38/22 3/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of his claim and stated that on 04.11.2021 at about 8.45 PM he was returning from his job at Sitaram Bhartia Hospital Katwaria on bycycle. When he reached at Riyasat Green Farm house, Sultanpur, Mandi Road, New Delhi suddenly a bike bearing no. DL-3SEW-9024 came which was being driven in a high speed, rash and negligent manner by the driver of the offending vehicle and four persons were sitting on the said vehicle, hit him. Due to the violent hit the petitioner fell down on the road and received multiple grievous injuries. After the said accident people gathered at the place of accident and someone called police on 100 number thereafter ambulance came at the spot and admitted him at AIIMS hospital, New Delhi wherein petitioner was treated and MLC was prepared. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working in a private company namely Shine and Standard in site namely Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research in House keeping department and earning Rs.22000/- approx per month. He has relied upon the following documents in support of his contentions.
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card and PAN card Ex. PW-1/1. (Colly) ( OSR).
2. Copy of salary slip given by the employer of the deponent marked as Mark 'X1'.
3. The original treatment records of the deponent Ex. PW-1/3. (Colly.).
4. The original medical bills Ex. PW-1/4. (Colly.) (eight Pages ). 5 The copy of MLC of the deponent is Ex. PW-1/5.
6 The copy of FIR NO. 465/2021 is Ex. PW-1/6. (three pages) 7 The copy of RC of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7. 8 The copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/8.
9 The copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/9.
10 The copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/10. ( Colly.) 11 The copy of disability certificate is Ex. PW-1/11.
MACT No. 38/22 4/22Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Kamaldeep, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, he admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that he was employed with the company namely Shine & Standard ( Facility Management) such as appointment letter, attendance register except the photocopy of the salary slip. The distance between his house and his work place is 20-30 Kms. approx. He denied the suggestion that he himself was driving in a rash and negligent manner. He has informed his office telephonically regarding the accident. Nobody came from the office to help him at the spot of the accident. He had stayed in Trauma Center for six month. He has not joined his duty till date due to pain in his left leg. He admitted that there is no prescription by the Doctors placed on record that he cannot work or he is not able to work or he should not work. There is no agriculture land for income. His father was a rickshaw pullar. His parents are sending money by taking loan from the relatives. He admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that his family is sending money to maintain his family.
Mr. Parminder Tanwar, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 1/ driver cum owner adopted the cross-examination conducted by the insurance company.
9. The insurance company has examined Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Manager Legal, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. as R2W1/1. She deposed that she has been authorized by the company to depose in respect of vehicle no. DL-3SEW-9024 for which policy no. 2312910145598200000 was issued for the period from 04.10.2021 to 03.10.2026 which is in the name of Gaurav. The policy was issued by the respondent subject to terms, conditions and exceptions of two MACT No. 38/22 5/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
wheeler vehicle. The respondent no. 2/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the vehicle was driving without any valid and proper driving licence to drive. The owner and driver has been charged in the DAR under Section 3/181 & 5/180 MV Act. The IO has filed the complete DAR where in it has been specifically stated that the driver was driving the vehicle without any driving license on the date of accident. A notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was also sent to the owner cum driver to produce the valid driving licencse but no valid proper and duly issued license/ DL by licensing authority has been produced till date.
10. No evidence has been led by the respondent no. 1.
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued forcefully that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the record of criminal proceedings, the petitioner has proved the fact that it was the respondent no. 1 who was responsible for the grievous injuries caused to injured due to his rash and negligent driving.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that he is not liable to pay any compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without any DL.
13. 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 Mahesh Rajak had categorically deposed the fact about the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1. No other version of MACT No. 38/22 6/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
accident has come on record except the one as narrated by injured. The statement of the injured that the offending vehicle hit him finds support from the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected.
14. Furthermore, 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 & 140 of the M V Act.
15. Testimony of PW1 Mahesh Rajak who was the injured is unrebutted and uncontroverted. Nothing material has come out in his cross-examination. No other version of accident has come up on record. The statement of the PW1 Mahesh Rajak finds support with the fact that the I.O. seized the offending vehicle and got it mechanically inspected. Mechanical inspection reports filed by the IO also support the investigation conducted by the IO and the testimony of the PW. There are fresh accidental damages on the rear side of the offending vehicle which were never explained by the respondents.
16. Further, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1/ driver MACT No. 38/22 7/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
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 adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1 in parking the offending vehicle in centre of the road without any indication or signal. The driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of the petitioners or even to explain the circumstances of accident. The evidence led by petitioners is unrebutted and un-controverted. He has not filed any complaint to any authority regarding his false implication.
17. All said and done, even the insurance company has not taken any steps to examine the IO or the respondent no. 1 to seek their version of the accident which could support the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company. It goes without saying that the proceedings under the MV Act are "summary in nature" and the evidence is not to be recorded and appreciated with all the technicalities of law of evidence. The insurance company did not even deem it fit to summon the driver of the offending vehicle. Indeed, the registered owner and the driver did not contest the matter despite appearing initially but then nothing precluded the appellant/ insurance company from summoning the driver and/or the registered owner so as to substantiate that no accident had take place due to their negligence. The plea raised by the insurance company that the injured was himself negligence does not find any support from the record or evidence. Nothing of this sort has come up in investigation conducted by the IO.
MACT No. 38/22 8/22Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
18. On the basis of evidence on record, above observation and discussion it is proved that the abovesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R1 Gaurav due to which the injured Mahesh Rajak received injuries. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Findings on Issue no.2:
To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?
19. 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.
20. 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 compensate the petitioners/claimants for the amount.
21. In order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability, Ld. counsel for the insurance company contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having DL. It has relied upon the testimony of R2W1 Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Legal Manager.
22. Perusal of charge sheet reveals that the respondent no.1 was charge sheeted u/s 3/181 Act for driving the offending vehicle without MACT No. 38/22 9/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
driving licence. As per the policy, the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, in the present case as observed above, the respondent no.1 was not having a valid licence to drive the said offending vehicle at the time of accident. The witness from the insurance company R2W1 was not cross-examined by the respondent no. 1 on this aspect despite opportunity being given. Therefore, it is proved that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, the respondent no. 1 is liable to pay the compensation for his wrongful action.
23. However, balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioners for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1/driver cum owner.
24. Now the Court has to decide the compensation which the injured is entitled. Injured in road traffic accident is entitled to damages for the injury suffered by him arising out of use of Motor Vehicle under both non-pecuniary and pecuniary heads.
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
25. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.33,025/-. Medical bills are in the name of petitioner coincide with the period of treatment.
MACT No. 38/22 10/22Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
These documents were never disputed. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and bills place on record, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.33,025/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
26. 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 case where petitioner/injured has suffered 13% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb and keeping in view the period of hospitalization and duration of treatment, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation towards his pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES :
27. In the present case the petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. However, the injuries on his person were such that he must have taken MACT No. 38/22 11/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
special diet for his early recovery. He must have spent some amount on conveyance and attendant. Therefore, looking into all the facts, I award Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
28. The injured stated that he was working in a private company namely Shine & Standard in site namely Sitaram Bhartia Insitute of Science and Reserach in House Keeping Department and was earning Rs.22000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner has not placed any document to prove the same. However, the petitioner has filed a photocopy of salary slip for the month of October 2021 which is mark X1. The same can not be considered being a photocopy. Hence, in the absence of any proof of income the minimum wages of an 'unskilled worker' in Delhi is taken into consideration which was Rs.16,064/- p.m at the time of accident i.e. on 04.11.2021.
The injuries on the person of the petitioner were such that he must have remained out of work at least for six months. Taking a period of six months as bed rest, the loss of income comes to Rs.96,384/- i.e. (Rs.16,064/- x 6 ) I therefore, award Rs.96,384/- to the petitioner towards loss of income.
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE DISABILITY
29. The petitioner had suffered 13% permanent physical impairment in respect of Left 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 MACT No. 38/22 12/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
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 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 MACT No. 38/22 13/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
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 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 MACT No. 38/22 14/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
award of 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.
30. 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.
31. It was held in the case of "Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC)" that 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, the loss of one of the legs to the marginal farmer would be the end of the road in so far his earning capacity is concerned. But in MACT No. 38/22 15/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
case of person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of leg may not have same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to any one 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 an office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of marginal farmer or a cycle rickshaw-puller. Reference was also made of the case "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343".
32. In the present case, the petitioner was working in House- keeping department and suffered 13% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb in this accident. 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 earnings. Therefore, looking into the physical condition of the petitioner, the rule half of the disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability, therefore, I take his functional disability as 7% of the whole body. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1997. The accident took place on 04.11.2021. Hence, he was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Taking a multiplier of '18', the future loss of income comes to Rs.22,489/- (Rs.16,064/- + 16,064 x 40/100) x 12 x 18 x 7% = Rs.3,40,033/-. I therefore, award Rs.3,40,033/- to the petitioner towards Future Loss of Income on account of permanent disability.
Loss of Amenities :
33. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner was not MACT No. 38/22 16/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
certainly able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an effect on his social life. I therefore, award Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
The total compensation of the petitioner hence comes out to be :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :Rs.33,025/-
PAIN & SUFFERINGS &
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :Rs.1,00,000/-
SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE &
ATTENDANT :Rs. 40,000/-
LOSS OF INCOME :Rs. 96,384
FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :Rs.3,40,033/-
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 50,000/-
==========
TOTAL :Rs.6,59,442/-
===========
RELIEF
34. In view of my findings on the issues, I award a sum of Rs.6,59,442/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Two only) to petitioner Mahesh Rajak 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.3,00,000/- is directed to be kept in the form of fixed deposit in the following phased manner :
• Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 01 year. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 02 years. • Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 03 years.
The remaining amount with interest be released to him.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, MACT No. 38/22 17/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35. 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 are 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 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
36. The respondent no.3 are directed to credit the amount directly to the MACT account of State Bank of India, District Court, Saket branch. Details of the bank i.e. IFSC code etc. have been provided to the Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3.
37. 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 petitioners.
38. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP)
39. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of MACT No. 38/22 18/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
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 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 MACT No. 38/22 19/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
same details shall be given by them to the Manager SBI, District Court Saket branch.DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 3
• 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 30 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 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 16.07.2024.
FORM IV-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE Date of accident : 04.11.2021 Name of the injured : Mahesh Rajak MACT No. 38/22 20/22 Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
Age of the injured: 25 years
Occupation of the injured : Private
Income of the injured : Rs.16,064/- (minimum wages of Delhi)
Nature of injury : Grievous
Medical treatment
taken by the injured : Yes
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1 Pecuniary Loss :
i Expenditure on treatment Rs.33,025/-
ii Expenditure on special diet, conveyance and Rs.40,000/-
attendant
iii Loss of earning capacity ---
iv Loss of Income Rs.96,384/-
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.1,00,000/-
iii Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
iv Dis-figuration and marriage prospects -----
v Loss of marriage prospects -----
vi Future loss of income Rs.3,40,033/-
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 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.6,59,442/-
MACT No. 38/22 21/22
Mahesh Rajak vs. Gaurav and ors.
5 INTEREST AWARDED 9%
6 Total amount of interest Rs.1,36,009/-
7 Total amount including interest Rs.7,95,451/-
8 Award amount released Rs.4,95,451/-
9 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.3,00,000/-
10 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Some amount be
to the claimant(s) released to the
injured and some
amounts are directed
to be kept in FDR.
11 Next date for compliance of the award. 16.07.2024.
Pronounced in the open court
on 30th MAY, 2024
(SUDESH KUMAR)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
MACT No. 38/22 22/22