Delhi District Court
Soumya Nath Mandal vs . Dinesh & Ors. on 18 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 3411/16
FIR No. 459/12
PS Okhla Industrial Area
Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors.
Disability Case
Shri Soumya Nath Mandal S/o Shri Madan Mohan Mandal,
R/o G30, Gali No. 2, Molar Bandh, New Delhi.
........................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. Shri Dinesh S/o Shri Udai Raj (Driver)
R/o Village Lamhan, PS Badlapur, District Jaunpur,
Uttar Pradesh.
2. S B Transport Co. (Owner)
16, DSIDC Sheds, Okhla Industrial Area, PhI,
New Delhi110020.
3. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
1st DLF Industrial Area, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi110015 and registered office at: GE Plaza,
Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune411006.
.....................Respondents
Initial date of Institution : 16.05.2013 Date of reserving the judgment : 18.05.2017 Date of pronouncement the judgment : 18.05.2017 Judgment:
1. Present claim proceedings were initiated on the basis of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police in respect of injuries suffered by injured/ MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 1 of 20) petitioner Shri Soumya Nath Mandal in a road accident. Injured/ petitioner also filed separate claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act on 16.05.2013 and it was directed that the same be tagged with the DAR.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.12.2012 at about 18.10 hours, petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR51T6052 and when he reached in front of Tulip, Maa Anand Mai Marg, Okhla, PhI, New Delhi, suddenly offending truck bearing registration No. HR69A0215, being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came with high speed and hit motorcycle of petitioner due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. Petitioner was taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. Thereafter, he was treated at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
3. FIR number 459/12 under Section 279/337 IPC was got registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area. Police conducted investigation. During investigation, police prepared site plan of place of occurrence, seized both vehicles involved in the accident and got them mechanically inspected, gave notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act to owner of offending vehicle, seized registration certificate of offending vehicle and arrested respondent No. 1. On completion of investigation, found respondent No. 1 driver/accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for the commission of offence under Section 279/338/468/471 of Indian Penal Code.
4. During proceedings, respondent No. 1 and 2 have not filed any written statement.
5. During proceedings, respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that registration of alleged MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 2 of 20) offending vehicle was found to be fake from Gurgaon Authority. It is asserted that National Permit of alleged offending vehicle was also found to be fake on verification. It is asserted that the insured has intentionally committed breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is asserted that alleged accident had taken place due to sole negligence of petitioner as he was driving motorcycle without any helmet. It is asserted that answering respondent is entitled to defence available under Section 147/ 149(2) / 170 of Motor Vehicle Act. However, it is admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. HR69A0215 (truck) was insured in the name of S. B. Transport Company vide policy No. OG131103183100000634 issued for the period from 25.08.2012 to 24.08.2013.
6. Following issues were framed on 06.09.2013: (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident which took place on 05.12.2012 at 06.10 hrs. involving vehicle Truck bearing number HR69A0215 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent/ driver, owned by respondent /owner and insured by respondent No. 3 (insurance company)? OPP (2) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
(3) Relief.
7. During recording of his evidence, petitioner filed Disability Certificate Ex.
PW1/18 issued from Kalna S D Hospital, Kalna, Burdwan wherein it is mentioned that petitioner suffered 85% permanent disability and nature of disability is mentioned as traumatic paraplegia.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 3 of 20)
8. During evidence, petitioner Soumya Nath Mandal got himself examined as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. MLC is Ex. PW1/1, Discharge Summary is collectively Ex. PW1/2, OPD Cards and medical prescriptions are collectively Ex. PW1/3, medical bills are collectively Ex. PW1/4, copy of Voter ICard is Ex. PW1/5, charge sheet is Ex. PW1/6, arrest memo of respondent No. 1 is Ex. PW1/7, FIR is Ex. PW1/8, RC of offending vehicle is Ex. PW1/9, insurance policy of offending vehicle is Ex. PW1/10, mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW1/11, site plan is Ex. PW1/12, driving licence of respondent No. 1 is Ex. PW1/13, copy of Appointment Letter issued from M/s STI Apparel Automotion Private Limited is collectively Ex. PW1/14, copy of education certificates with sports activities are collectively Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16, photograph of petitioner is Ex. PW1/17, copy of Disability Certificate is Ex. PW1/18, computer generated copy of salary slip of petitioner is Ex. PW1/19 and copy of his driving licence is Ex. PW1/20.
9. Petitioner also got examined his brother i.e. Shri Bankim Prasad Mondal as PW2 who has deposed that he is attending the injured Soumya Nath Mandal from 06.00 PM to 09.00 AM after the accident and Rabindra Nath Ghosh is attending the injured from 09.00 AM to 06.00 PM. Other attendant Rabindra Nath Ghosh is paid Rs.15,000/ in cash for the last two years.
10. No other witness was got examined by petitioner.
11. Respondent No. 2/ S B Transport Co. got examined Shri Yogesh Kumar, Transport Inspector, Office of RTO, Nuh as R2W1 who has brought on record RC and Permit of offending vehicle as Ex. R2W1/1 and Ex. R2W1/2 MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 4 of 20) respectively. He has deposed that Permit Ex. R2W1/2 was valid from 08.08.2012 to 09.08.2013. He has also deposed that RC Ex. R2W1/1 is also valid and correct.
12. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company got examined its Sr. Executive Legal as R3W1 who has relied upon certain documents i.e. insurance policy of offending vehicle covering the period from 25.08.2012 to 24.08.2013 is Ex. R3W1/2, notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to driver and owner are Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4, postal receipts of aforementioned notice is Ex. R3W1/5, verification report of investigator deputed by Insurance Company regarding RC of offending vehicle is Ex. R3W1/6. He has deposed that as per report Ex. R3W1/6, name of registered owner is M/s CB Transport. He has deposed that IO filed charge sheet under Section 279/338/468/471 IPC against the driver as particulars of registration as well as permit was not found in the registration authority. The policy is null and void as the same was obtained on the basis of misrepresentation. The owner has committed intentional breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner in the present case.
13. No other evidence has been led by any of the respondents.
14. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue No. 1 (Negligence)
15. PW1 Shri Soumya Nath Mandal in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) has categorically stated that he got injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was driving offending truck at the time of accident.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 5 of 20) Nothing came in his crossexamination which could create doubt on his version regarding the manner of accident. Furthermore, after due investigation, police filed charge sheet against respondent No. 1 for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338/438/471 IPC.
16. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court (MP) in case titled as "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors" [2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 6 of 20)
17. In view of the above discussions, it is established that petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
18. In injury cases, the claimants are entitled to pecuniary as well as non pecuniary damages. Apex court in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar 2011 (1) SCC 343 held that compensation awarded must be "just compensation" means to the extent possible Tribunal fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position which he/she was having prior to the accident. The person is not only to be compensated for physical injury, but also for loss which he /she suffered as a result of such injury. Apex court in R. D. Hatangadi Vs Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd (1995) 1 SCC 551 held that pecuniary and non pecuniary compensation to be assessed separately. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred, which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non pecuniary damages are those which are not capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation, however no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the victim, therefore object to compensate such injury is "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate money with the human suffering or personal deprivation. To compute compensation involved some guess work, some hypothetical considerations, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. In Nagppa Vs Gurdayal Singh 2003 (2) SCC 274 Apex court observed that while calculating such damages Tribunal required to have some guess work taking into account the inflation factor.
19. In the light of aforesaid guidelines and parameters, this Tribunal has to assess MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 7 of 20) the compensation to be awarded to the claimant/petitioner.
20. Medical Expenses: PW1 in his affidavit of evidence has stated that after the accident, he was taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. As per MLC Ex. PW1/1, petitioner suffered abrasion over right upper eyelid, swelling and deformity over left thigh and abrasion medial aspect of thigh with muscle deep wound of 2X2 CM. As per Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/2 (collectively), petitioner was admitted in JPNA Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi on 05.12.2012 and was transferred to other hospital due to paucity of beds. He was diagnosed to have suffered minor head injury, fracture shaft of left femur at middle 1/3rd D12 and compression burst fracture. At the time of transfer, petitioner was given various medicines and it was noted that petitioner need operative intervention. Thereafter, petitioner was treated at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. As per Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/2 (collectively), petitioner remained admitted in Apollo Hospital from 06.12.2012 to 21.12.2012. He was diagnosed to have suffered Poly Trauma, fracture D12 with paraplegia, fracture left femur and hemothorax. He was operated on 10.12.2012 under general anesthesia for stabilization and fixation of D12 vertebra with open reduction of fracture femur left side. At the time of discharge, petitioner was on catheter. He was advised to undergo physiotherapy and wheel chair mobilization. He was also advised various medicines and to come for followup after six months. MRI report dated 06.12.2012 of petitioner for dorsolumbar spine from SRL Diagnostics is filed on record as PW1/3 (collectively) which reveals that petitioner suffered fracture displacement with marrow edema of D12 vertebra. Discharge Summary & Certificate issued from National Institute For The Orthopaedically Handicapped, BT Road, Kolkata is filed on record as Ex. PW1/2 (collectively) which shows that MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 8 of 20) petitioner received treatment in said hospital and was diagnosed to have suffered traumatic paraplegia. Petitioner filed Disability Certificate Ex. PW 1/18 issued from Kalna S D Hospital, Kalna, Burdwan wherein it is mentioned that petitioner suffered 85% permanent disability and nature of disability is mentioned as traumatic paraplegia. At the stage of arguments, counsel for petitioner filed various physiotherapy receipts signed by one Souvik Mandal. Said receipts cannot be considered for reimbursement as all the receipts have not been proved in accordance with law. Petitioner for claiming medical expenses relied upon medical bills (Ex. PW1/4 Colly.) amounting to Rs.8,71,383/. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner suffered amputation of her right lower limb, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/ is granted to the petitioner for medical expenses.
21. Compensation for Pain & Sufferings: Petitioner has suffered 85% permanent disability due to paraplegia, therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident as well as age of petitioner, a sum of Rs.45,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
22. Loss of Amenities and enjoyment of Life: Petitioner suffered 85% permanent disability due to paraplegia, this amputation will definitely hamper his daily activities and enjoyment in every walk of life. Hence, a sum of Rs.15,000/ is granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
23. Loss of income during treatment: As per paragraph No. 4 to 6 of claim petition, petitioner was doing private service with STI Apparel Automation and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month at the time of accident. Petitioner has MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 9 of 20) deposed during his crossexamination that he was paid Rs.15,000/ through cheque and Rs.10,000/ in cash by his employer company. However, he has himself admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that he was getting Rs.15,000/ per month through cheque. He has admitted that no voucher or receipts were signed by the employees in lieu of payment of Rs.10,000/ in cash. He has also not filed his bank account details. Perusal of documents filed on record shows that petitioner has filed Appointment Letter dated 21.03.2012 issued from M/s STI Apparel Automation (P) Ltd. as Ex. PW1/14 wherein it is mentioned that petitioner was offered job of Corporate Sales Officer with a consolidated Cost to Company of Rs.15,000/. Pay slip for the month of November, 2012 is also filed on record as Ex. PW1/19 and perusal of the same shows that petitioner was having salary of Rs.15,000/ per month. No other document regarding monthly income of petitioner is on record. Hence, monthly income of petitioner is taken as Rs.15,000/ per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner, it can be accepted that petitioner would have taken rest for about 06 months. Hence, the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.15,000/ X 06 = Rs.90,000/. Accordingly, petitioner is granted Rs.90,000/ towards loss of income during treatment.
24. Loss of earning capacity: As per driving licence Ex. PW1/20, date of petitioner is 31.03.1981. Therefore, he was around 31 years at the time of accident i.e. 05.12.2012. It is natural that with the disability and injuries suffered by the petitioner, his earning capacity has been reduced. Present injury will diminish his earning capacity. Petitioner suffered 85% permanent disability due to paraplegia. In view of the judgment of Delhi High Court titled as "Laxmi Narain Vs. Trilochan Singh & Ors., FAO No. 289/99, dated MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 10 of 20) 04.05.2009, Delhi", the total functional disability towards whole body is assessed around 42%.
25. Future prospects: Counsel for petitioner has argued that future prospects should be granted to petitioner since he is a young man and his future earnings have been curtained due to this accident. Counsel for petitioner has also argued that petitioner was a highly qualified person and was also active in extra curricular activities. In this regard, she has relied upon educational certificates and extra curricular activities certificates of petitioner which are collectively Ex. PW1/15. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that is nothing on record to show that petitioner was permanent employee of M/s STI Apparel Automation Pvt. Ltd. as he was offered job in March, 2012 on probation for six months, but petitioner has not filed any confirmation letter. Counsel for Insurance Company has also argued that petitioner was offered job on a consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/ which shows that his income was fixed. As per documents filed on record, petitioner was not a permanent employee of M/s STI Apparel Automotion (P) Ltd. and his salary was fixed. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for future prospects (Judgments relied: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P SRTC Vs. Trilok Chandara (1996) 4 SCC 362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that in the case of selfemployed or those on a fixed salary, the element of future prospects cannot be factored in. These judgments have been referred to in the case of Ram Dayal & Anr. Vs. Ram Nibash & Ors. MAC Application No.1012/2015 decided on 21.01.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and held that in the case of Minimum Wages, no future prospects can be granted).
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 11 of 20)
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011(1) SCC 343, mandated multiplier method for calculation of compensation for future loss of earning capacity which is as follows:
(a) Annual income= Rs.1,80,000/ (Rs.15,000/ X 12).
(b) loss of future earning per annum (Rs.1,80,000/ X 42%) = Rs.75,600/.
(c) Petitioner is found to be around 31 years of age at the time of accident, Therefore, applicable multiplier as per Sarla Verma Case is 16.
(d) Loss of future earnings = Rs.75,600/ X 16 = Rs.12,09,600/.
Thus, a sum of Rs.12,09,600/ is granted towards loss of future income.
27. Attendant Charges, Special Diet and Conveyance Charges: PW2 Shri Bankim Prasad Mondal has deposed that he is attending injured Soumya Nath Mandal from 06.00 PM to 09.00 AM after the accident and Rabindra Nath Ghosh is attending the injured from 09.00 AM to 06.00 PM. Other attendant Rabindra Nath Ghosh is paid Rs.15,000/ in cash for the last two years. However, PW2 has admitted that they are not maintaining any cash receipt regarding services rendered by attendant. At the stage of arguments, counsel for petitioner filed various receipts in relation of attendant charges which were signed by one Uttam Das. However, said receipts cannot be considered for reimbursed as they are not proved in accordance with law. However, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner suffered permanent disability due to paraplegia. Keeping in mind the injuries suffered by petitioner, a sum of Rs.10,000/ each is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges. Thus, total sum of Rs.30,000/ is granted under this head.
28. Disfigurement: Petitioner suffered disability which causes disfigurement of MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 12 of 20) the body, therefore a sum of Rs.25,000/ granted to him towards disfigurement.
29. Wheel Chair: Petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85% due to paraplegia. He would require the help of wheel chair for the rest of his life to mover around. Though petitioner has not filed any document to show expenses incurred by him on wheel chair, but since petitioner has suffered paraplegia and his lower body is not functioning properly, I deem it fit to award petitioner a sum of Rs.40,000/ towards wheel chair and its maintenance.
30. The total compensation is assessed for injured as under: 1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs.9,00,000/ 2 Compensation for pain & suffering Rs.45,000/ Compensation for attendant charges, special Rs.30,000/ 3 diet & conveyance 4 Loss of future earning capacity /future income Rs.12,09,600/ Compensation for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/ 5 enjoyment of life 6 Compensation for disfigurement Rs.25,000/ 7 Loss of income during treatment Rs.90,000/ 8 Wheel Chair Rs.40,000/ Total Rs.23,54,600/
31. Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.23,54,600/ (Rs. Twenty Three Lac Fifty Four Thousand and Six Hundred Only).
Relief:
32. The petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.23,54,600/ (Rs. Twenty Three Lac Fifty Four Thousand and Six Hundred Only) with interest @ 9% per MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 13 of 20) annum from the date of filing of the present petition (excluding interest for the period w.e.f. 09.04.2014 till 14.05.2015, in terms of order dated 09.04.2014), till the date of realization of the amount in favour of petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
33. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that registration certificate of offending vehicle as well it permit was not valid on the date of accident. In this regard, Insurance Company got examined R3W1 who relied upon certain documents i.e. insurance policy of offending vehicle covering the period from 25.08.2012 to 24.08.2013 is Ex. R3W1/2, notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to driver and owner are Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4, postal receipts of aforementioned notice is Ex. R3W1/5, verification report of investigator deputed by Insurance Company regarding RC of offending vehicle is Ex. R3W1/6. He has deposed that as per report Ex. R3W1/6, name of registered owner is M/s CB Transport. R3W1 deposed that IO filed charge sheet under Section 279/338/468/471 IPC against the driver as particulars of registration as well as permit was not found in the registration authority. The policy is null and void as the same was obtained on the basis of misrepresentation. The owner has committed intentional breach of terms and conditions of the police, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner in the present case. However, respondent No. 2 got examined Shri Yogesh Kumar, Transport Inspector, Office of RTO, Nuh as R2W1 who has proved permit and RC of offending vehicle as Ex. R2W1/2 and Ex. R2W1/1 respectively. He has deposed that Permit was valid from 08.08.2012 to 09.08.2013 and RC is also valid and correct. Hence, witness of respondent No. 2 i.e. R2W1 who was called from concerned transport authority has duly proved permit and RC of offending vehicle. Thus, Insurance Company has failed to prove any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy by MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 14 of 20) the insured. Respondent No. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle at the time of accident, is directed to discharge the liability of the award amount within a period of 30 days from today along with the interest @ 9% per annum, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be charged for the period of delay.
Release of awarded amount:
34. Share of petitioner: A sum of Rs.23,54,600/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner. Out of this amount, Rs.3,54,600/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 1 year. 11. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 11 yrs.
2. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 2 yrs. 12. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 12 yrs.
3. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 3 yrs. 13. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 13 yrs.
4. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 4 yrs. 14. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 14 yrs.
5. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 5 yrs. 15. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 15 yrs.
6. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 6 yrs. 16. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 16 yrs.
7. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 7 yrs. 17. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 17 yrs.
8. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 8 yrs. 18. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 18 yrs.
9. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 9 yrs. 19. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 19 yrs.
10. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 10 yrs. 20. Rs.1,00,000/ for period of 20 yrs.
35. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
36. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
37. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 15 of 20) Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC. App.135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
38. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit/ savings account by Hon'ble High Court, respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner 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 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
39. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "Fixed deposit/saving account" in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of his saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimant/ petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant/ petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant/ petitioner without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimant/ petitioner alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 16 of 20)
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant/ petitioner at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimant/ petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to her convenience.
(ix) Claimant/ petitioner 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.
Directions for the respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
40. The Respondent No. 3 will intimate to the claimant/ petitioner about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
41. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance and copy be also sent to DLSA, SE and Ld. MM concerned.
42. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 17 of 20) 1 Date of the accident 05.12.2012.
2 Date of intimation of the accident 07.12.2012.
by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident Not available.
by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 26.03.2013.
Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the 26.03.2013.
Insurance Company.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 26.03.2013.
claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable.
DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or There was delay in filing of
deficiency on the part of the DAR. IO filed various
Investigating Officer? If so, applications for extension of
whether any action/ direction time in filing of DAR. No
warranted? action was warranted
12 Date of appointment of the Not available.
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company.
13 Name, address and contact Not available.
number of the Designated Officer
of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 18 of 20)
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Report was not submitted
the Insurance Company submitted within 30 days of filing of his report within 30 days of the DAR.
DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Insurance Company denied
admitted the liability? If so, liability
whether the Designated Officer of
the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in
accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or There was no deficiency on
deficiency on the part of the part of Designated Officer
Designated Officer of the of Insurance Company. No
Insurance Company? If so, action was warranted.
whether any action/direction
warranted?.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) No legal offer was filed.
to the offer of the Insurance
Company.
18 Date of the award. 18.05.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed No.
with the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined No petitioner was not
at the time of passing of the award examined at the time of
to ascertain his/their financial passing of award, but her
condition? financial condition was
asked and according to her
financial condition and age,
award amount is directed to
be kept in the form of FDRs.
21 Whether the photographs, Photo ICard and other
specimen signatures, proof of requisite information was
residence and particulars of bank already on record. account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the Part award amount is MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 19 of 20) award amount to the claimant(s). released and rest is ordered to be kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 07.07.2017.
award.
Announced in open Court Dated:18.05.2017 (Madhu Jain) POMACT02/(South East District) Saket, New Delhi/18.05.2017 MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 20 of 20)