Delhi District Court
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 1 Of 19 on 24 February, 2018
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL : JUDGE : MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 4994916
MACT PETITION No. : 346/14
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010007732014
Sh. Parvez Alam S/o Sh. Azab Khan
R/o 218, Type2, Police Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase1, Delhi52
Versus
1. Sh. Vikas Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. R.K. Gupta
R/o F58, Ashok Vihar, Phase1, Delhi.
.......... (Driver cum owner/R1)
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance co Ltd.
Plot No. 6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
.......... (Insurance co. /R2)
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 19.08.2014
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 23.02.2018
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.02.2018
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 1 of 19
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 2 of 19
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 4.3 OF THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003
RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. & SOBAT SINGH VS
RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR., MAC.APP 422/2009 VIDE
ORDER DATED 15.12.2017
1. Date of the accident 09.01.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 13.01.2014
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 19.08.2014
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in the
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 19.08.2014
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 19.08.2014
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 19.08.2014
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 19.08.2014
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 2 of 19
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 3 of 19
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. S.K. Tyagi,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Filed a legal offer.
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer N/A
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 24.02.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 19.01.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank
not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 23.02.2018
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s) (Clause 27)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Parvez
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Alamsavings bank
IFSC Code (Clause 27) a/c no. 37120830678
with State Bank of
India, Rohini Courts,
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 3 of 19
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 4 of 19
Delhi,
IFSC : SBIN0010323
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award. (Clause 27)
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI,
be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 19.08.2014 with reference to FIR No. 20/14 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Ashok Vihar in respect of grievous hurt sustained by the petitioner Sh. Parvez Alam in a road accident on 09.01.2014 at about 4:00 pm, near Taxi Stand D Block, Ashok Vihar, Phase1, Delhi and the ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 19.08.2014 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the DAR are that on 09.01.2014 at about 4:00 pm, petitioner was driving motorcycle no. DL 10S4817 with his friend Chirag Kalra as a pillion rider and was proceeding towards B block Market from Police colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. When he reached near Taxi stand D block, one car bearing registration no. DL3CBV0858 (offending vehicle ) which was being driven by R1 at a very high speed rashly, negligently and without caring for the traffic rules came from opposite side and after coming on the wrong side of the road hit against the motorcycle of petitioner. Due to said impact petitioner fell down on road and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Sunder Lal Jain hospital and remained admitted there from 09.01.2014 to 14.01.2014. It 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 4 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 5 of 19 has been further averred that thereafter he was referred to Ganga Ram Hospital where he remained admitted from 14.01.2014 to 19.01.2014. The FIR no. 20/14 PS Ashok Vihar was registered u/s 279/337 IPC and charge sheet was filed against R1 Vikas Gupta u/s 279/338 IPC PS Ashok Vihar.
3. Sh. Vikas Gupta/R1, who is the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle has filed his written statement wherein he has submitted that he was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. He further submitted that offending vehicle was insured with Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co at the time of accident. He further stated that the claimant was himself at fault as he was driving his vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner.
4. The Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co/R2 has filed its written statement/legal offer wherein it has been mentioned that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it at the relevant time vide policy 5573/97068487/000/00 valid from 31.01.2013 to 30.01.2014 and was thus covering the date of accident i.e. 09.01.2014. Insurance co. has given legal offer of Rs. 48,172/+medical bill. Insurance co/R2 has however, taken the plea of contributory negligence of the injured to the extent of 25%.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.03.2015:
1. Whether on 09.01.2014 at 4:00 pm, at D Block, Ashok Vihar, one car bearing registration no. DL3CBV0858, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Vikas Kumar Gupta/R1 hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL10S4817, make Yamaha R15 and caused injuries to Parvez Alam/petitioner?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner/injured in support of his case has examined himself 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 5 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 6 of 19 as PW1.
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
7. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Co./R3 and have carefully perused the record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is on the petitioner.
The petitioner/injured has examined himself as PW1. He has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved medical bills as Ex. PW1/1 (colly), OPD card of Sunder Lal Jain Hospital as Ex. PW1/2 and admission card for written test for the post of Constable & Head Constable as Ex. PW1/3 (colly). He has relied upon the entire DAR.
He has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 09.01.2014 at about 4:00 pm, he was driving motorcycle no. DL10S4817 and was proceeding towards B block Market from Police colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. When he reached near Taxi stand D block, one car bearing registration no. DL3CBV0858 (offending vehicle ) which was being driven by R1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without caring for the traffic rules came from opposite side and after coming on the wrong side of the road hit against the motorcycle of petitioner. He further deposed that due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on road and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over the body. He further deposed that he was taken to Sunder Lal Jain hospital and remained admitted there from 09.01.2014 to 14.01.204. It has been deposed that thereafter petitioner was referred to Ganga Ram Hospital where he remained admitted from 14.01.2014 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 6 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 7 of 19 to 19.01.2014.
He was cross examined only on behalf of ld counsel for R2/Insurance co. wherein he has deposed that he was pursuing B.A. LLB. He further inter alia deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. He deposed that the place of accident was a single road with no divider in between. He admitted that the vehicles collided up front. He denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his negligence since he was driving fast or that he went on the wrong side on the road. He further denied the suggestion that offending car was on the correct side of the road or that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. His further cross examination is only qua earning, medical expenses and income of petitioner which is not germane to the issue in hand.
PW1/petitioner was not cross examined by R1 despite opportunity and hence, he shall be deemed to admit the abovesaid testimony of PW1 to the effect that he received injuries in the said accident at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Nothing material has come on record to shake the version of PW1 regarding the manner in which the said accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Nothing substantial has appeared in the testimony of PW1/petitioner to discredit her testimony and his testimony in that regard is found to be reliable.
In the facts and circumstances, the certified copies of FIR and chargesheet u/s 279/338 IPC against respondent no. 1 can be looked into to determine the negligence on the part of respondent no. 1. There is thus nothing on record to suggest even remotely that R1 did not cause the said accident in the manner as deposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 7 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 8 of 19 and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle negligently and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
9. Issue no. 2.
In view of findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW1. He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the documents as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3.
He has deposed that due to the accident, he was immediately taken to Sunder Lal Jain hospital and remained there from 09.01.2014 to 14.01.2014 and thereafter shifted to Ganga Ram Hospital where he remained under treatment from 14.01.2014 to 19.01.2014. He deposed that he sustained fracture on left leg, serious injuries on chest, serious injuries on right side, serious head injuries and other serious injuries on various parts. He has deposed that an operation of left femur was conducted and steel implants were inserted in it. He deposed that angiography was also conducted in Ganga Ram Hospital as his condition was critical and was having respiratory problems due to injuries sustained in the accident. He deposed that at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital he remained admitted in ICU for three days as he was unable to breath properly and blood was oozing from his mouth. PW1 Sh. Parvez Alam was further recalled for further examination in chief wherein he deposed that he consulted doctors of Sundar Lal Jain hospital for persisting pain in his left leg who advised 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 8 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 9 of 19 him for the removal of implants which were installed in his right leg during his admission from 09.01.2014 to 14.01.2014 consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. The OPD car cum estimate for implant removal is Ex. PW1/4.
In cross examination by ld counsel for R2, PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex. PW1/4 is false. He further inter alia deposed that he was not an income tax assessee and he has not filed any income proof regarding his income of Rs. 15,000/ per month from the said tuition. He deposed that he was under treatment and was unable to work of 8 months. He deposed that he had no documentary proof to show that he paid Rs. 10,000/ per month to the attendant for four months. He deposed that the written examination for the post of constable and Head constable of Delhi police were separate examination conducted on different dates and had he appeared in the written examination, the document Ex. PW1/3 would have been deposited at the examination hall and would not be with him. Nothing substantial has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his testimony and his testimony is found reliable and trustworthy.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A. Medical Expenses The petitioner has placed on record medical bills which have been proved as Ex. PW1/1 (colly ) and the same are not disputed by R2/Insurance co during final arguments and same comes to Rs. 2,81,325/. Therefore, Rs. 2,81,325/ are granted to the petitioner under this head.
B. Special Diet and conveyance Petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has testified that he had spent Rs. 20,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 30,000/ on special diet. Petitioner has, however, not placed on record any evidence regarding special diet and conveyance. As per proved medical record the 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 9 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 10 of 19 petitioner suffered fracture shaft femur (left) with head injury with loss of consciousness due to road traffic accident on 09.01.2014. He was taken to Sunder Lal Jain hospital vide MLC No. 8782/14 and underwent ORIF of left femur at Sunder Lal Jain hospital on 11.01.2014. He, thereafter, developed respiratory distress on 11.01.2014 with failure to maintain oxygen saturation and underwent CT angiography on 13.01.2014 which was suggestive of bilateral pulmonary lower lobe consolidation (posteriorly). He was referred to higher center on 14.01.2014 by Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. On 14.01.2014 and thereafter admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he had complaints of excessive sputum mixed with blood along with pus. In view of the above said grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted under the said head.
C. Attendant Charges Petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he had spent Rs. 10,000/ per month till four months for attendant charges. During cross examination, petitioner has clearly admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he had paid Rs. 10,000/ per month to the attendant for four months. In view of the above noted grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months wherein he would have required the attendant for about 4 months, it is evident that some person/attendant would have been required by his for the said period to look after him. In the said circumstances, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted under the said head.
D. Loss of income during treatment Ex. PW1/3 (colly) would show that these are admission card for written tests of the petitioner qua recruitment of temporary constable(DogHandler) in Delhi Police and for recruitment of 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 10 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 11 of 19 Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police. During final arguments ld counsel for petitioner and ld counsel for insurance co. have admitted that only a person who is 12th pass is eligible for appearing in the said tests and that minimum wages of a matriculate be taken for calculating loss of income as the petitioner has not filed any income proof. In the said circumstances, the income of the petitioner is being assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a matriculate as fixed by Govt of NCT of Delhi.
The minimum wages of a matriculate as per minimum wages Act are Rs. 9802/ on the date of accident, hence, Rs. 9802/ per month is taken as the notional income of the petitioner. As per record, the probable period of treatment of petitioner has been taken of about 6 months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs. 58,812/ (Rs. 9802/x6 months) is granted for 6 months.
E. Pain and Suffering In view of the above noted grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/ is granted under the said head.
F. Future Removal of implant PW1 deposed that he visited Sunder Lal Jain hospital and consulted doctors for the persisting pain in his right leg and after examination the doctors advised him for the removal of implants which were installed in his leg during his admission from 09.01.2014 to 14.01.2014 consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. The OPD card cum estimate of Sunder Lal Jain Hospital for implant removal is of Rs. 35,000/ to Rs. 40,000/ and has been proved as Ex. PW1/4. The ld counsel for petitioner has examined that the petitioner would have to bear this expenses in future as he has to get the said implant removed due to persisting pain in his leg as per the advise given by doctors vide Ex. PW1/4. He argued that the said amount be also 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 11 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 12 of 19 granted to him in the award.
The ld counsel for insurance co/R2 has opposed it mentioning that no doctor has been examined by the petitioner. This Tribunal is conducting only an enquiry and not a full fledged trial. The said OPD card dated 23.02.2017 of Sunder Lal Jain hospital has been proved as Ex. PW1/4 which mentions the estimate for implant removal as Rs. 35,000/ to Rs. 40,000/. It is an admitted position that the claimant/petitioner suffered fracture shaft femur (left) for which he underwent ORIF of left femur at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital on 11.01.2014. The doctors at Sunder Lal Jain hospital vide Ex. PW1/4 have clearly advised for implant removal with an estimate of Rs. 35,000/ to Rs. 40,000/. It is a beneficial legislation and it seems that the petitioner would have to incur the said amount on his implant removal which is direct consequence of the case accident. In the said circumstances and discussion, the petitioner is also granted Rs. 40,000/ under this head.
10. The ld counsel for insurance co./R2 has prayed during final arguments that contributory negligence to the extent of 25% be deducted from the award of the petitioner as it was a head on collision in which the petitioner was also negligent.
The ld counsel for petitioner has opposed it submitting that the insurance co. had to prove this plea either from the circumstances or by leading evidence but R2 has failed to prove it. It is an admitted position that accident was a head on collision between the offending car being driven by R1 and the motorcycle of the petitioner being driven by him. Petitioner has deposed as PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that the offending car came on the wrong side of the road and hit his motorcycle. In cross examination, PW1 admitted that the place of accident was a single road with no divider in between and the vehicles collided head on. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence since 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 12 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 13 of 19 he was driving fast or went on the wrong side of the road or that the offending car was on the correct side of the road or that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Nothing has appeared in the testimony of PW1 to discredit his testimony to the effect that the case accident was caused due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. It has also so been held in my findings on issue no. 1 to the effect that the case accident was caused due to sole negligence of R1. Further, R2 has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate its plea. R1 has not lead any evidence and has also not even cross examined PW1 despite opportunity. In the said circumstances, the insurance co/R2 has failed to substantiate or prove its plea regarding any contributory negligence of the petitioner qua the case accident.
11. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs. 5,30,137/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 40,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,81,325/
5. Loss of Income Rs. 58,812/
6. Future Removal of implant Rs. 40,000/ Total Rs. 5,30,137/ Rounded of to Rs. 5,30,150/ ( Rupees Five Lakhs Forty thousand one hundred fifty only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 19.08.2014 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 13 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 14 of 19 from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
12. Liability In the case in hand, the insurance company/R2 has not been able to show anything on record that R1, who was the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R2, hence R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., R2/ Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co. is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 5,30,150/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R2/ Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co. is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is 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 awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
13. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 27 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 14 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 15 of 19 case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Further, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ be released to petitioner in cash in his saving bank a/c no. 37120830678 with State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Rohini, Delhi i.e. the branch near his place of residence as mentioned in his statement recorded under clause 27 MCTAP with necessary endorsement regarding no cheque book and debit card in terms of orders of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO No. 842/2033 dated 15.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 and remaining amount be kept in 48 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 48 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Sobat Singh vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta and case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, MAC.APP . 422/2009 and FAO 842/2003 :
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 maturity amount of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the saving bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalised bank near the place of his residence i.e. above said a/c.
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 15 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 16 of 19(e) No loan, advance or 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.
(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.
14. Relief Since the offending vehicle was insured, R2/ Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co. is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 5,30,150/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 19.08.2014 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
R2/ Cholamandlam MS General Insurance co. is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 2 for compliance within the granted time. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
15. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 16 of 19 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 17 of 19 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded wherein he had stated that he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
16. Form IVB has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 24th February 2018 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 17 of 19
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 18 of 19
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 09.01.2014
2. Name of injured Sh. Parvez Alam
3. Age of the injured 29 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Self employed/private job
5. Income of the injured. Rs. 9802/
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 6 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 10 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 2,81,325/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 40,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs.58,812/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Rs. 40,000/ (future removal of special treatment or aid to the injured for implants) the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 18 of 19
346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 19 of 19
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 5,30,150/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 1,66,995/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 6,97,145/
18. Award amount released Rs. 2,00,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 4,97,145/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 05.04.2018 (Clause 31) (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
24.02.2018 346/14 Parvez Alam vs Vikas Gupta Page 19 of 19