Delhi District Court
Ms. Kirti Singh vs Sh. Chirag Ahlawat on 1 February, 2019
MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5152/16(Old MACP No. 13F/13)
Ms. Kirti Singh,
D/o Sh. Shiv Bahadur Singh,
R/o I492,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Chirag Ahlawat,
S/o Sh. Bachan Singh,
R/o H.No. 56B,
Village Badli Extn.,
Delhi(Driver)
2. Sh. Bachan Singh,
R/o H.No. 56B,
Village Badli Extn.,
Delhi (Registered owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Anupam Bhawan,
A13, Naniwala Bagh,
Azadpur,
Delhi(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.06.2013 Date of Arguments : 17.01.2019 Date of Judgment : 01.02.2019 APPEARENCES:
Sh. J.S. Arya, Adv for petitioner/injured.
Respondents no. 1 & 2 are exparte.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Adv for respondent no. 3.Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 1 of 22
MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD:
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 494/12 U/s 279/337 IPC registered at PS. Prashant Vihar with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 03.12.2012 at 6.15 pm on road in front of NorthEx Mall, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi, involving Car bearing registration no. DL9CP9729 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner.
Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter called DAR) filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. According to DAR, on 03.12.2012, the petitioner alongwith her friend namely Geetika, was going to the house of Geetika by cycle rickshaw. At about 6:15 pm, when they reached in front of NorthEx Mall, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. DL9CP9729 which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the aforesaid cycle rickshaw. As a result thereof, they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner was removed to Bhagwati Hospital, Sector - 13, Rohini, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No. 1048/12. It is averred in Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 2 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 the DAR petition that claimant was aged about 25 years old and she was doing the training of JBT Teacher at the time of accident. The aforesaid vehicle i.e. car was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner although put their appearance before the Claims Tribunal on 07.06.13 i.e. at the time of filing of DAR, however, they failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. They also failed to appear before this Claims Tribunal on the subsequent dates and consequently, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.01.14 passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. In its WS/reply, the respondent no. 3 has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V. Act by claiming that as per DAR, the respondent no.1 was found under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and he was also chargesheeted for offence u/s. 185 M.V. Act. Thus, it has no liability to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. However, it has been admitted that the aforesaid Car No. DL9CP9729 was insured with it, vide policy no. 272601/31/2012/9856 w.e.f 27.03.2012 to 26.02.2013 in the name of Sh. Bachan Singh(R2). It has not denied the contents of DAR.
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 3 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 30.01.2014 by my Ld. Predecessor:
1) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in a motor accident on 03.12.2012 in front of North X Mall, Rohini, Delhi due to rashness and negligence on the part of R1?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period?OPP.
4) Relief.
6. In support of her claim, the petitioner has examined only herself as PW1. She closed her evidence on 03.09.2015 through her counsel. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by the respondents no. 1 & 2, they both being already exparte. However, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined one witness i.e. Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited as R3W1 and closed evidence on 12.07.18 through its counsel.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form VI B, vide order dated 17.01.19 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 4 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 ISSUE NO. 1.
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Ms. Kirti Singh (injured herself) is relevant. In her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A), she deposed that on 03.12.2012, she alongwith her friend namely Geetika, was going to the house of Geetika by cycle rickshaw. At about 6:15 pm, when they reached in front of NorthEx Mall, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. DL9CP9729 which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the aforesaid cycle rickshaw. As a result thereof, they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. She further deposed that she was removed to Bhagwati Hospital, Sector - 13, Rohini, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No. 1048/12. She has relied upon the following documents: S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex. PW1/1(colly)
2. Copy of discharge summary and Ex. PW1/2(colly) medical bills
3. Her salary slip issued by her Ex. PW1/3 employer
9. During her cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 3, she deposed that the cycle rickshaw on which she was travelling, was being pulled on left side of the road at the time of accident. She volunteered that their cycle rickshaw had already crossed the traffic signal before it turned Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 5 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 red but the offending vehicle came from behind after jumping the red light signal and struck against the back portion of said cycle rickshaw. She denied the suggestion that no such accident had taken place with the vehicle no. DL9CP9729. She volunteered that the vehicle was seized on the spot after the accident. She further volunteered that the driver of offending vehicle was drunk. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness at all, they both being already exparte.
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents, more particularly insurance company, could not impeach her testimony through litmus test of crossexamination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, PW1 herself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why she would depose falsely against respondent no.1. Moreover, FIR No. 494/12(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) is shown to have been registered on the statement of this witness. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident, as deposed by her during the course of inquiry as PW1. Moreover, the respondents have not led any evidence to rebut the testimony of aforesaid witness on the aspect of accident in question being caused due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing no. DL9CP9729. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted testimony of this witness made on oath.
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 6 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
11. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 494/12 (supra) was registered at PS. Prashant Vihar with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR(which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly), would show that FIR was registered on 04.12.12(date of accident being 03.12.12 at 6:15 pm). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of car bearing registration no. DL9CP9729 at the instance of petitioner herein.
12. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid Car, was the other 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 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 driving of Car bearing no. DL9CP9729 by him.
13. Apart from above, the respondent no. 1 namely Chirag Ahlawat S/o Sh. Bachhan Singh (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337 IPC & Section 185 M.V. Act by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car bearing registration no.
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 7 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 DL9CP9729 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
14. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of injured prepared at Bhagwati Hospital, shows that she had been removed to said hospital on 03.12.2012 at 6:30 pm with alleged history of RTA. On her local examination, she was found to have sustained injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
15. Furthermore, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 06.12.2012 (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Car No. DL9CP9729, would show that there were fresh damages i.e. its front bumper was found scratched, bended and dislocated; its front body was damaged; its both headlights were damaged; its bonnet and grill were damaged and its front left wheel suspension and axle were damaged. Said report which has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 Ms. Kirti Singh to the aforesaid extent. Moreover, the offending motorcycle is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of seizure memo dated 04.12.12 (date of accident being 03.12.12 at 6:15 pm) (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly).
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 8 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that she had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 03.12.2012 at 6.15 pm on road in front of NorthEx Mall, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing no. DL2W0288 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
17. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
18. PW1 i.e. injured herself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, she was removed to Bhagwati Hospital, Sector - 13, Rohini, Delhi, where she was medically examined vide MLC No. 1048/12. Thereafter, on 04.12.12, she was admitted in Nav Jeewan Medical Centre, Tri Nagar, Delhi vide M.R.D. No. 7282 and she was discharged from the said hospital on 07.12.12. She further deposed Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 9 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 that she had sustained multiple grievous injuries and her jaw was dislocated due to the accident. She deposed to have spent considerable amount on her medical treatment. She has relied upon her medical bills( which are part of Ex. PW1/2 colly). During her crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company, she deposed that she did not have any document to show that she remained under treatment after 07.12.12. She denied the suggestion that she did not remain on bed rest for 2 months. She further denied the suggestion that medical bills filed on record, were false and fabricated. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness at all, they both being already exparte.
19. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 32,978/ only, which are part of Ex. PW1/2(colly). It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 32,978/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
20. Injured namely Ms. Kirti Singh (PW1) has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that she was employed with Step by Step School as Nursery Teacher and was drawing Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 10 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/ at the time of accident. She further deposed that her employer had fired her from job due to her long absence from the duty. She has relied upon copy of her salary certificate(Ex. PW1/3) issued by her employer. She also deposed that she had also suffered financial loss on account of her termination from the job. During her cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company, she deposed that she did not have any certificate from doctor prescribing her any bed rest. She volunteered that she remained bed rest for 2 months. She further deposed that she did not have any certificate of leave. She also deposed that she did not have any document to show that she had suffered any loss of income. She denied the suggestion that she was not employed or that she was not earning any amount as on the date of accident. She further denied the suggestion that the salary certificate(Ex. PW1/3) was false or procured document. She also deposed that she had not filed any document regarding her educational qualification. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness at all, they both being already exparte.
21. The Discharge Paper(which is part of Ex. PW1/2 colly) of Navjeewan Medical Centre in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that she remained admitted in the said hospital from 04.12.12 to 07.12.2012. Said treatment record would show that she had suffered fracture of lower jaw with multiple abrasions. As already noted above, relevant part of testimony of PW1 as well as her medical treatment record, have gone unchallanged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents.
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 11 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
22. Apart from the aforesaid documents produced by PW1 i.e. the petitioner, she has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the exact period upto which she had received the medical treatment. Nevertheless, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered fracture lower jaw with multiple abrasions. After considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that she would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 2 months or so.
23. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured argued that the petitioner was working as Teacher in Step by Step School and she was getting monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/. For the said purpose, he vehemently relied upon salary certificate(Ex. PW1/3). He further argued that the petitioner had to loose her job due to the reason that she remained confined to bed on account of injuries suffered due to the accident and therefore, appropriate compensation amount should be awarded to her in this case. On the other hand, counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that no evidence whatsoever has been led by claimant to prove that she was actually working for gain or was earning anything at the time of accident. He further argued that employer of petitioner has not been examined during the course of inquiry.
24. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, I tend to agree with the submissions made on behalf of Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 12 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 insurance company that for want of definite and reliable evidence being led by claimant showing that she was actually working as nursery teacher in the aforesaid school or was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/ at that time. The petitioner has failed to examine her employer to prove this fact during the course of inquiry. At the same time, it may be noted here that the petitioner has filed copy of marksheet of first semester of B.Ed Degree Course, meaning thereby that she had taken admission in the said course somewhere in the year 2016, whereas the accident had occurred on 03.12.12. At that point of time, she would have been matriculate at the most. In these circumstances, the minimum wages of Matriculate under Minimum Wages Act during the period in question, has to be taken into consideration. The minimum wages of Matriculate were Rs. 8,814/per month as on the date of accident which is 03.12.2012. Thus, a sum of Rs. 17,628/ (Rs. 8,814/ x 2) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head and against the respondents.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
25. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 13 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
26. Injured herself as PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that she had sustained multiple grievous injuries. As already noted above, her treatment record (Ex. PW1/2 colly) as available on file, would corroborate her ocular testimony which has otherwise gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. It can not be overlooked that she had suffered fracture of lower jaw with multiple abrasions. Thus, she would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 50,000/towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
27. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered fracture of lower jaw with multiple abrasions. Thus, she would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question for considerable period and her quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by her and her continued treatment for considerable Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 14 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
28. In her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A), injured has deposed that she had spent considerable amount on special diet and conveyance but she has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained fracture of lower jaw with multiple abrasions. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/ for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ for special diet to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 32,978/
2. Loss of income Rs. 17,628/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 25,000/ enjoyment of life Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 15 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
5. Conveyance & special diet Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 1,40,606/ Rounded off to Rs. 1,41,000/
29. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance company tried to avoid the liability of insurance company on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Chirag Ahlawat was holding commercial licence at the age of 19 years, which was prohibited under the law. He further argued that respondent no. 1 was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and has been chargesheeted for offence u/s. 185 M.V. Act by the investigating agency. Same constituted breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. In support of his aforesaid contention, he heavily relied upon the testimony of R3W1 Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd examined on behalf of insurance company during the course of inquiry.
30 In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it would be relevant to refer to testimony of relevant witness. R3W1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R3W1/A) that copy of DL of R1 filed alongwith DAR clearly shows that his date of birth as mentioned therein, is Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 16 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 14.07.1993 and his commercial DL was issued w.e.f 08.01.12, which shows that the respondent no. 1 was aged about 19 years at the time of issuance of commercial licence. Hence, same was not valid as on the date of accident. She further deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of alleged accident and was challaned by police u/s. 185 of M.V. Act. Thus, insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation amount in the present case as there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of owner/insured. She has relied upon copy of notice u/s 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/4, their postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/B & Ex. R3W1/C and copy of insurance policy of aforesaid vehicle for the period in question, as Ex.R3W1/D. She has not been crossexamined by respondents no. 1 & 2, they both being already exparte and has also not been crossexamined on behalf of claimant.
31. It may be noted that as per verified copy of DL in the name of respondent no. 1, would show that same is shown to be valid for the category of SC;TW;LMV;AR. It is also relevant to note that in response to summons issued to concerned DTO from whose office the said DL was purportedly issued, report dated 31.03.18 had been received under the signature of DTO, Bishnupur District, Manipur alongwith attested copies of relevant pages of DL issuing register, containing entry with regard to DL in favour of R1. According to said report, said DL had been issued in favour of R1 for the category of SC/LMV/AR having validity from 08.11.12 to Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 17 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 07.11.15. That being so, I am of the view that it can not be said that there was no valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 for the category of LMV(NT) and the offending vehicle is car which falls in the category of LMV(NT). Nevertheless, it is duly established on record that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending car under the influence of liquor and that is why, he is shown to have been chargesheeted for offence u/s. 185 M.V. Act. As already noted above, the entire testimony of R3W1 has gone unchallenged from the side of insured, who also failed to lead any evidence and rather preferred to stay away from the proceedings throughout the inquiry. Hence, it is held that due to said reason, there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured. Thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against respondent no. 2. (Reliance placed on decision dated 26.09.2017 in FAO no.7555/2015 in the matter titled as "MS Middle High School and another Vs. Usha and others" by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP no.31406/2017 titled as "MS Middle High School Vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. & others" decided on 22.11.2017). Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 332. It is well settled law that the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum in case of compensation to be awarded to them. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 18 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
ISSUE NO. 433. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 to 3, I award compensation of Rs. 1,41,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 07.06.2013 till the date of its realization. However, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the award amount from respondent no. 2 after payment of compensation amount, in accordance with law.
APPORTIONMENT
34. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 17.01.2019. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 60,000/ (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) (since a sum of Rs. 32,978/ has already been incurred by her on her medical treatment) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through her saving bank account no. 08661000920982 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Guru Nanak Public School, West Avenue, Delhi, having IFSC Code PSIB0000866 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 19 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
35. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 20 of 22MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
36. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimant was asked as to whether she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. She stated on oath that she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished Form No. 15G on record.
37. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 60,000/ in the aforesaid saving bank account mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award alongwith form no. 15G(after retaining its copy on record) be given dasti to claimant. Copy of this award be given dasti to counsel Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 21 of 22 MACP No. 5152/16 FIR No. 494/12; PS. Prashant Vihar DOD: 01.02.2019 for insurance company. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IVB and Form V in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by VIDYA PRAKASH VIDYA Date:
PRAKASH
Announced in the open
2019.02.01
16:11:57
+0530
Court on 01.02.2019
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Kirti Singh Vs. Chirag & Ors. Page 22 of 22