Delhi District Court
Jeet Kaur vs Shri Balister Singh (Driver) on 12 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
P.O. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT : KKD COURTS : DELHI
MACT No. 343/12 and New MACT No. 15033/15
FIR No. 199/12, P.S. Welcome Colony
U/sec 279/337 IPC
JEET KAUR
W/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o H. NO. A-26/C, Gali no. 2, North Chhajupur, Delhi. ........Petitioner
Versus
1. SHRI BALISTER SINGH (Driver)
S/o Sh. Bharose Lal
R/o Village Nagla Bhoori, PO Kuchela 205001
2. BABITA
W/o Sanjeev Kumar
R/o C-265, LIG, DDA Flats,
East Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. ( Owner)
3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
2nd Floor, Aditya Tower Plot no. 5,
Laxmi Nagar, Div Vikas Marg, New Delhi (Insurance)
.....Respondents
Through:-
Sh. Ramanand Choudary, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, D-614, KKD Courts, Delhi Sh. N.K. Rathi, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2, D-896/97, G-323, KKD Courts,Delhi Ms. Sadhna Chaudary, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 (address not mentioned).
i) Date of institution of the case : 21.09.2012
ii) Date on which Award pronounced : 12.08.2016
APPLICATION U/S 166 & 140 M.V. ACT 1988
FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION
AWAR D
1. Petitioner being the injured has filed the present claim petition seeking compensation under M.V. Act. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.06.2012 at about 02:45 pm the petitioner was returning towards her residence after finishing her duty and during this process MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 1/12 petitioner reached at bus stoppage near Maujpur Red Light by a mini bus and thereafter, she had to take a rickshaw after crossing the road for her residence. When she was crossing the road at Maujpur red light for a rickshaw, at the same time a heavy goods vehicle(tanker) bearing no. DL 1GB 3898 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from 100 ft road Babarpur side and hit the petitioner. As a result, of which petitioner fell down and sustained multiple fractures/crush injury on her right leg and various other injuries. Petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital. Petitioner remained admitted in the GTB Hospital from 17.06.2012 to 13.07.2012. Thereafter, petitioner was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment. During the admission in the hospital, right leg of the petitioner was amputed on 14.07.2012 . PS Welcome Colony has registered FIR No. 199/12 against respondent no.1. Petitioner was doing a private job in Shish Ganj Gurudwara, Chandani Chowk and used to earn Rs. 8,662/- per month.
2. Summons were issued to respondents. Joint WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 &
2. It has not been specifically denied that FIR no. 199/12 was registered at PS Welcome Colony against respondent no. 1. According to the respondent, no accident took place due to their vehicle and they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It is stated that injured deboarded from the DTC bus at a place where there was no bus stop and then she was in a hurry and tired to cross the road. In the meanwhile, a tractor trolly was following her and the injured on seeing the tractor trolly at once fell down. It is stated that the tractor trolly had crushed her foot and the said tractor trolley had fled from the spot.
WS was also filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 stating that vehicle bearing no. DL 1GB 3898 was insured with the respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 1316422349000032 valid from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2013.
3. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed :
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1GB 3898 by respondent no. 1 on 17.06.2012 at about 2:45 pm at Maujpur Red Light, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S Welcome Colony? OPP.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
4. Petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and has tendered her affidavit Ex. PW 1/X and relied upon the documents i.e election card Ex. PW 1/A, treatment record and medical bills Ex. PW 1/B, disability certificate Ex.PW 1/C, original computer generated bank statement MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 2/12 Ex. PW1/D, attested copies of criminal case record Ex. PW 1/E, copy of estimated cost for artificial limb of deponent Mark A, photographs Ex. PW1/F. PW 2 Sh. Shamsher Singh, Superintendent Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee has been examined as PW 2, Sh. Sourav Mahapatra has been examined as PW 3, Dr. R. Mukunth ,Sr. Resident Orthopedic, GTB Hospital has been examined as PW 4. Respondents have not led any evidence.
5. I have heard the counsels for the petitioner and insurance co. and gone through the entire evidence on record carefully. My issuewise findings are as below :
6. ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1GB 3898 by respondent no. 1 on 17.06.2012 at about 2:45 pm at Maujpur Red Light, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S Welcome Colony? OPP.
7. Petitioner has examined herself and deposed about the facts in her affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/X. Police Station Welcome Colony has registered the offence vide FIR No. 199/12 U/s 279/337 IPC against the respondent no.1. Injured in her affidavit has stated that when she was crossing the Maujpur Red light for a rickshaw at the same time a tanker bearing no. DL 1GB 3898 came from 100 ft. road Babar Pur side and hit the petitioner. During cross examination she deposed that the spot of accident is a crowded area and no other person sustained injuries at the spot. She has denied the suggestion that accident took place by the tractor trolly or that the accident took place due to her negligence as she was in a hurry.
8. Nothing has come forward in the cross-examination of PW 1 that the driver i.e respondent no. 1 was not at fault and accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving.
Respondent no. 1 has not even entered the witness box to state as to how the accident occurred and has not withstood the test of cross examination whereas the petitioner has stated about the accident on oath.
To determine the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court 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 and the mechanical inspection report of the offending MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 3/12 vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also a settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed 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.
Further the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal, held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit.
A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
Therefore , from the statement of the PW 1 Ms. Jeet Kaur and in view of the record of the criminal case regarding the accident, it is proved that injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 17.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1GB 3898 driven by its driver i.e Respondent no. 1. This issue is decided accordingly.
MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal
Page no. 4/12
9. ISSUE NO.2
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Petitioner has stated in her chief affidavit that she was admitted in GTB Hospital on 17.06.2012 to 13.07.2012. Thereafter, she was referred to Safdarjung hospital but the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital referred her back to GTB Hospital where she was again admitted on 13.07.2012 to 01.08.2012 and on 14.07.2012 her right leg was amputated. Petitioner was allowed to get examined by the GTB Hospital for the purpose of assessing disability and the disability certificate was issued on 01.02.2013. As per the contents of the disability certificate, petitioner suffers permanent disability of 65% of right lower limb.
Income of deceased As far as income of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated by petitioner in the claim petition as well as chief affidavit Ex. PW1/X that she was working as sewadarni and earned Rs. 8662/- per month day. Sh. Shamsher Singh, Superintendent, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan has been examined as PW 2, who deposed that petitioner was employed with their management from 07.06.95 and petitioner has left the services of the management after she met an accident and she has left the job from 18.10.2013 and she was getting Rs. 10,570/- as salary. He has also brought the leave record of the petitioner which is Ex.PW2/A and original copies of salary certificate of July alongwith salary slip and the record of legal cell pertaining to accident case is Ex. PW2/B. It is further submitted that petitioner is not capable to work with the management therefore, petitioner has left the job , petitioner could note even stand or walk properly therefore, they are unable to engage her in any kind of job. During cross examination he deposed that injured was a sewadarani in Gurudwara and thus, was doing the work of preparing langer (food), preparing and destroying receipts of prasad. He further deposed that even if the petitioner is fitted with the artificial limb she will not be able to do the work of sewadarani in their gurudwara and the petitioner has resigned from the job of sewadarani due to accident in question and she is not getting any pension after resigning from the job. Though, petitioner has stated that she was earning Rs. 8662/- per month, however, as per the testimony of PW2, she was getting salary of Rs. 10,570/-. As per salary slip Ex. PW2/B gross salary of deceased was Rs. 10,570/- out of which an amount of Rs. 100/- was deducted towards langar and Rs. 1808/- was deducted towards PF and after deducting the amount of Rs. 1908/-, her net salary was Rs. 8662/-. As the amount of PF deducted was part of her salary, therefore, her income for the purpose of assessing future loss and income is taken to be Rs. 10,470/- per month.
MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal
Page no. 5/12
Age of deceased and multiplier
As per voter I card she was 49 years as on 01.01.2008. As per MLC she was 60 years of age on the date of accident. As per the disability certificate dated 01.02.2013 petitioner at the time of examination was aged about 53 years. As per cross-examination of PW2, the injured would have retired on 02/02/2014 at the age of 60 years and the age of the injured as per her service record was 58 years on the date of accident. The age of the injured is thus, taken to be 58 years on the date of accident as per her service record.
Applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Smt. Sarla Verma vs DTC 2009 AIR (SC) 3104", the multiplier applicable in the present case is 09, for the purpose of calculating future loss of income.
Disability:-
It is difficult to ascertain in exact terms as to how much the disability in right lower limb has affected the whole body of the petitioner. Counsel for petitioner has argued that as an important limb of petitioner is rendered almost non-functional, the functional disability be considered 100% where as the counsel for insurance has argued that whole body disability be reduced to half. Petitioner during her examination as per clause 26 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure has stated that she is illiterate and thus, she is not qualified enough to take up any clerical job. PW2 has clearly stated that injured was incapable to work after accident as she could not stand and walk properly and therefore, she was unable to prepare langer and do the work of sewadarani. PW4 Dr. R. Mukunth during his cross-examination has also clearly stated that injured will not be able to do the work of cleaning and sweeping like an able bodied person. Considering the age and occupation of the petitioner and the fact that her right lower limb has been amputated, I am of the opinion that 100% of disability can be considered in relation to whole body for the purpose of calculation of future loss of income. Dr. R. Mukunth has been examined as PW 4 and he proved the permanent disability certificate Ex. PW1/C of the patient Jeet Kaur.
The law has been well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in disability injury cases under following heads:- (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, injured is further entitled to non-pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (2) loss of prospects of marriage & (3) loss of MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 6/12 expectation of life.
PECUNIARY EXPENSES / COMPENSATION Diet, Conveyance and Attendant Charges:-
Perusal of the medical record of the injured shows that she was under medication and was repeatedly going to the hospital for her regular follow up check ups and therefore, she must have incurred some expenditure on the conveyance. Petitioner has stated that she incurred and spent Rs. 25,000/- on special diet and Rs. 15,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 48000 on her attendant. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the Claimant i.e permanent disability and amputation of right lower limb and the fact that she was under constant treatment, she would have definitely needed an Attendant to look after her. Petitioner has stated that she has engaged full time attendant to whom she paid Rs. 4000/- per month in cash and she has paid Rs.48,000/- as salary to the attendant till the date of examination in the court. However, no documentary proof has been filed on record to show that she has paid any amount to attendant or paid amount for conveyance and special diet. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of this Court held that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members, for the benefit of the tortfeasor. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered amputation, some family member would have attended her during her stay in hospital also. Thus, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges. Petitioner has not shown anything for spending money on special diet and conveyance but she has gone for follow up check ups as per the treatment record filed and must have been given special diet for speedy recovery. Thus, Rs. 20,000/- is awarded for special diet and Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Treatment expenses:-
Petitioner has stated that she incurred and spent Rs. 25,000/- on her treatment. However, medical bills of Rs. 20272/- has been filed in support of her claim . Petitioner is entitled the above said amount spent for her treatment.
Future Treatment Expenses / Aid:-
Sh. Sourav Mahapatra, Prosthetist & Orthotist, Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd., has been examined as PW3, who has brought the summoned record of Ms. Jeet Kaur regarding the estimated cost of artificial limb issued by Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. Same is Ex. PW3/A and as per documents Ex. PW 3/A, the total estimated cost of artificial limb is MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 7/12 Rs.3,11,240/-. He further deposed that apart from the said amount patient has to incur Rs. 15000/- to 20000/- per annum as maintenance cost, the life of artificial limb is 6-7 years provided the artificial limb is maintained property. It is further submitted that cost of abovesaid artificial limb increases approximately 10% per annum and if the patient gives a order for making artificial limb today i.e on 29.05.2015 when the testimony of PW 3 was recorded, then the cost of artificial limb could be Rs. 3,60,000/- to Rs. 3,70,000/-. It is further deposed that in case the patient gets fitted with the suggested artificial limb then she can have normal walking and the patient can bend herself with artificial limb but she cannot squat with the artificial limb.
PW3 is the witness from Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. who has stated that cost of artificial limb is around Rs. 3,60,000/- to Rs. 3,70,000/-, if the patient ordered for making of artificial limb on the date when he was examined. He has further stated that cost of above artificial limb increased @ 10% per annum and therefore, cost of artificial limb would be around Rs. 400,000/- as on date. He has also stated that patient would have to incur Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per annum as maintenance cost. He has further stated that life of artificial limb is around 6-7 years and thus, it seems that petitioner would at least replace her limb once more during her liftime and may also have to purchase the same more than once depending upon the number of years she survives. Thus, it is deemed fit that an amount of Rs. 800,000/- be awarded to petitioner towards cost of implantation of the artificial limb and an additional amount of Rs. 200,000/- be awarded towards maintenance cost of artificial limb and future medical expenses etc. As the amount awarded towards implantation of artificial limb and toward its maintenance, cost is calculated as on date and is awarded as per its cost as on date, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the above said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% on the above said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the date of the award till it is deposited by insurance co. with the tribunal.
Future Loss of earning:-
Ld. Counsel for insurance co. has argued that retirement of petitioner was due on 02/02/2014 as per testimony of PW2 and therefore, loss of income only till the date of 02/02/2014 should be awarded to her. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that even after retirement from the services of management of of Shish Ganj Gurudwara she could not have taken up any job. In India, it is uncommon that people do take up jobs even after retirement from regular services and therefore, loss of future income is assessed as per the multiplier table given in Sarla Verma MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 8/12 Judgment.
Accordingly, the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as below: Rs. 10,470/- X 12X 9 = Rs. 11,30,760/- X 100% (disability) = Rs. 11,30,760/-. NON PECUNIARY EXPENSES:-
10. In Zahid Khan Vs. Arun Mandal and others, 2016 ACJ 1142 in which injured was labourer and suffered 85% permanent disablement due to amputation of right leg, Rs. 100,000/- was awarded as pain and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs. 1,75,000/- for amputation of leg and disfigurement, Rs. 200,000/- for artificial limb and Rs. 200,000/- for future medical and other expenses.
11. Accordingly, compensation is calculated as below:
NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION Compensation towards pain and suffering Rs. 100,000/-
Compensation towards loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/-
Compensation towards disfiguration and Rs.1,50,000/-
amputation of leg
Total non-pecuniary compensation Rs. 400,000/-
PECUNIARY COMPENSATION
Loss of Income for 6 months / post accident Rs. 62,820/-
(Rs.10,470/- X 6 )
Loss of future income due to permanent Rs. 11,30,760/-
disability
Compensation towards salary of attendant Rs. 50,000/-
Compensation towards special diet Rs. 20,000/-
Compensation towards conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
Medical bills Rs. 20,272/-
Artificial limb 800,000/- Interest not payable
Future Medical expenses such as purchase 200,000/- Interest not payable
of artificial limb etc.
Total Rs.22,98,852/-
Thus, the total compensation amount is Rs. 26,98,852/-
MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal
Page no. 9/12
12. Liability
Respondent no. 3 is the insurance company which admittedly has issued a valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle. There is no evidence on behalf of respondent no. 3 to show that there was any violation of the rules and terms of policy by the respondents no. 1 & 2. Hence, I am of the opinion that respondent no.3 being insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2.
13. RELIEF Injured was examined as per clause 26 of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure wherein she stated that she is an illiterate and presently unemployed.All her children are married and her husband has also expired around 2 years ago. She has stated that the amount she would get from the tribunal will be utilised by her on her treatment and implantation of artificial limb. She would utilize some of the amount to repay loans borrowed from her relative.
Injured is entitled to an amount of Rs. 26,98,852/-.
Out of the abovesaid award amount, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith corresponding interest (from the date of award) is be deposited by way of separate cheque and the same be kept in separate account and the amount be utilised for implantation of artificial limbs of the injured and for expenses to be incurred for its repair / replacement in future from time to time.
Accordingly, Respondent no. 3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,98,852/- (including interim compensation, if any). by way of depositing cheque in the account of Jeet Kaur, petitioner no. 1 having account in Indian Bank, Hardevpuri bearing account no. 6187335429 along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the petition (21.09.2012) within 30 days. In default, respondents no.3 shall be liable to pay penal interest on the award amount @ 12% p.a. for the default period.
In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimla Devi, MAC APP. 547/2016 vide its order dated 25/07/2016 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that "This court is of the view that if the deceased would have been alive, his family members would have received a portion of his income every month and not a lump sum amount at any point of time. The purpose of awarding compensation is to put the family members of the deceased in the same financial position. As such, it would be appropriate to ensure that the family members get reasonable amount of compensation every month like they would have received if the deceased had been alive".
As per clause 28 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure ,depending upon MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 10/12 the financial status and financial need of the claimant, the tribunal has to release the amount as considered necessary and remaining amount be kept in FDR in phased manner. Injured, if would have kept on earning or working, she would have received monthly salary and not lumpsum amount at any point of time.
Bank Manager, Indian Bank, Hardevpuri is thus, directed to keep a sum of Rs. 14,40,000/- in fixed deposit in the following manner and the remaining amount be released in her account.
Sr. No. Duration of FDR Petitioner no. 1 FDR amount 1 1 year 120,000/- 2 2 years 120,000/- 3 3 years 120,000/- 4 4 years 120,000/- 5 5 years 120,000/- 6 6 years 120,000/- 7 7 years 120,000/- 8 8 years 120,000/- 9 9 years 120,000/- 10 10 years 120,000/- 11 11 years 120,000/- 12 12 years 120,000/- Total 14,40,000/-
The Bank shall further comply with following directions :-
(a) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the injured.
(b) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(c) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant.
(d) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. However, a photo identity card be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal be permitted upon production of the identity card.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The Bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the savings bank account or MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal Page no. 11/12 fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(g) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in the Tribunal.
Copy of the award be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Indian Bank alongwith the court stamped copy of the photographs, specimen signatures, proof of residence and bank account details of the petitioner. (as per clause 27 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure).
A separate cheque in the name of PO, MACT , North East for an amount of Rs. 10/- Lakh alongwih interest 9% per annum from date of award (12/08/2016) be also deposited by the insurance company towards cost of artificial limb within 30 days of the award . In default, respondents no.3 shall be liable to pay penal interest on the abovesaid amount @ 12% p.a. for the default period . The petitioner can approach the present tribunal from time to time for release of the above amount for implantation of the artificial limb. It is further directed that amount shall be released to Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. directly from tribunal as per bills / quotation received for implantation of the artifical limb and its maintenance from time to time.
Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties from court for compliance and be sent to the court of concerned Ld. MM & DLSA.
Put up for compliance on 13/09/2016.
Pronounced in Open Court on (KIRAN BANSAL)
12/08/2016 P.O. MACT(North-East)
KKD Delhi
MACT no. 343/12 Ms. Kiran Bansal
Page no. 12/12