Delhi District Court
Tanuj Gupta S/O Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta vs Afjal & Ors on 11 October, 2017
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15398/15
IN THE MATTER OF :
Tanuj Gupta S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta
R/o A288, Gali No. 2,
Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi110094
............. Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. Afjal s/o Chhiddan
R/o Village Sefka Sarai
TS Sambhai, PS Kotwali
Distt. Sambal UP
( Driver of the offending vehicle)
2. Azeem S/o Sh. Shameem Ahmad
R/o H. No. 267, Moh Chaman Sarai
Sambhal UP
( Owner of the offending vehicle)
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
E8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapur
Jaipur, Rajasthan302022
( Insurer of offending vehicle)
......... Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 25.11.2014 Date of Judgment/Order : 11.10.2017 MACT No. 15398/15 1 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
A W A R D:
1. By this order, I shall dispose off the claim petition filed by the petitioner / injured for grant of compensation in view of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 23.08.2014 at about 12:40 midnight, the petitioner was returning to his residence from Gandhi Nagar to Karawal Nagar. The petitioner was on his motorcycle No. DL 7 SBL 3008. When the petitioner was crossing the Shashtri Park Red light at Green Signal, suddenly a tempo No. UP 81 Y 9740 coming from ISBT being driven by respondent No. 1 in a very fast speed jumped the red light and hit the petitioner. Due to the aforesaid accident, the petitioner fell down together with his motorcycle. Serious injuries were caused to the petitioner and he was taken to St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi for treatment by the PCR. The petitioner suffered severe injury arising out of the accident. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 23.08.2014 and remained there up to 19.09.2014 for his treatment.
3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed WS denying the averments made in the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing of the same. As contended, answering respondent No. 1 was having the valid DL and all other concerned documents at the time of alleged incident. It is further contended that no accident had ever been caused from the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 at any point of time and there is no negligent on the part of the respondent No.
1. The vehicle of the respondent No. 2 was duly insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. While denying rest of the claim of the petitioner in the petition, the respondent No. 1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
MACT No. 15398/15 2 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Respondent No. 3 filed the WS of the petition contending that this petition is not maintainable. Vehicle No. UP 81 Y 9740 was insured with answering respondent in the name of Mr. Azeem Shah vide policy No. 100003/31/14/498762 valid from 15:53 hrs on 31.10.2013 to mid night 30.10.2014.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 81 Y 9740 ( tempo) by respondent No. 1 on 23.08.2014 at about 12:40 AM ( midnight) at Shashtri Park Crossing/ red light within the jurisdiction of PS New Usman Pur, Delhi? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
The petition was thereafter fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. The petitioner filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 1/A and examined himself as PW1 and deposed regarding the accident. He also deposed regarding the documents i.e:
(i) Ex. PW 1/ 1 copy of Adhar Card
(ii) Ex PW 1/ 2 copy of Driving license
(iii) Ex. PW 1/ 3 is the copy of ITR ( iv) Ex. PW 1/ 5 is the original medical bills
(v) Ex PW 1/ 6 is the discharge summary
(vi) copy of FIR mark A Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Liazley Roburt Ilias, Medical Record Clerk, St. Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi as PW2 appeared with the summoned record i.e. entire medical MACT No. 15398/15 3 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
treatment record of patient Tanuj Gupta/ petitioner of St. Stephen Hospital who was admitted in hospital on 23.08.2014 and was discharged on 19.09.2014 Ex. PW 2/ 1, duplicate copy of bills with details for a sum of Rs. 2,63,776.94/ of the patient already mark B and now Ex. PW 2/ 2. PE was thereafter closed.
6. Respondent did not lead RE despite opportunities therefore RE was closed.
7. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and ld. Counsel for insurance company and gone through the records. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows :
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. UP 81 Y 9740 ( tempo) by respondent No. 1 on 23.08.2014 at about 12:40 AM ( midnight) at Shashtri Park Crossing/ red light within the jurisdiction of PS New Usman Pur, Delhi? OPP
8. To succeed in the claim petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Petitioner deposed about the facts of the case. He was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for respondent and during crossexamination nothing has come forward in his testimony to disbelieve the version of PW. On the other hand, respondents did not examine any witness to rebut the contentions and deny the claim of the petitioner and mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the petitioner. No witness was produced or examined by respondents as well to prove as to how accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner ; the respondent No. 1 was not at fault and was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses. I have gone through the record and documents in respect of MACT No. 15398/15 4 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the accident caused to the petitioner which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Relied judgment in (Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530 and the judgment in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 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."
9. In judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the vehicle in question was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side. In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the MACT No. 15398/15 5 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
10. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana to examine the aspect of negligence 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 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 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 MACT No. 15398/15 6 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 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.
11. Therefore, in view of the material on records and testimony of witnesses, it is proved that the petitioner/ injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 23.08.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing No. UP 81 Y 9740 driven by its driver i.e respondent No. 1. The issue No. 1 is decided accordingly. Issue No. ii :
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so at what amount and from whom? OPP
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. examined the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. As held:
4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable MACT No. 15398/15 7 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.
MANU/SC/0146/1995 : 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker V. Willoughby 1970 AC 467.
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
MACT No. 15398/15 8 of 16
Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life ( shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the MACT No. 15398/15 9 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
claimant.
Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability that disability refers to any restriction for lack of liability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for human being permanent disability refers to the residuary in capacity or loss of huge of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after receiving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed which reference to the whole body, or more often then an not, with reference to a particularly limb. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on his earnings capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earnings capacity in terms of percentage of income, it has been pointify in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earning( by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency As further held, the trial has to first decide whether there is an permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves MACT No. 15398/15 10 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability ( this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
Hon'ble Supreme court laid down the principles in respect of the assessment of compensation regarding injuries as below:
(i) All injuries ( or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability ( except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injuredclaimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent MACT No. 15398/15 11 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentage of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
13. I have gone through the testimony of the witnesses alongwith complete medical records. Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that as the petitioner failed to prove his income, he is entitled for compensation in accordance with the minimum wages at relevant time. It is further stated that injured has not suffered any monetary loss on account of the injury and therefore, he should not be granted any amount on account of loss of income.
It is deposed by petitioner that due to the accident, he fell down together with his motorcycle ; serious injuries were caused to the petitioner and he was taken to St. Stephen Hospital, Delhi for treatment by the PCR. The petitioner suffered severe injury arising out of the accident. It is further stated that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 23.08.2014 and remained there up to 19.09.2014 for his treatment. As stated, petitioner is working with an Export House on a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/. Witness further stated that he is regularly filed income tax return and in support of contentions, he has filed on record income tax return Ex. PW 1/ 3 ( colly). The income of the injured is taken from the assessment year 20152016 which was Rs. 26,104/( Rs. 3,13,244 / 12).
14. I have gone through the medical records of the petitioners. There is nothing on record in support of the affidavit of PW1 that he suffered any MACT No. 15398/15 12 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
loss of earnings from his work. However, with the kind of injuries suffered by him, it can be safely assumed that he would have been under treatment for about three months. He is thus awarded Rs. 78,312/ (Rs. 26,104/ X 3) for three months for Loss of Wages.
15. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ from the respondents. It is also claimed that after the accident, the petitioner could not perform his routine and required attendant/ assistance for his day to day business; he also suffered financial losses due the accident and his family suffered mental pain and agony.
16. While fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the age and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life generally are to be reckoned. From the overall assessment, I assess Rs. 40,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to the Claimant.
17. The ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has spent amount for his treatment and medical bills has been filed. In support of contentions, petitioner has summoned and examined the witness i.e. Liazley Roburt Ilias, Medical Record Clerk from St. Stephen Hospital as PW2 appeared with the treatment records of the petitioner and witness stated that duplicate copy of the bills with details for a sum of Rs. 2,63,776.94/ of the patient already mark B and now Ex. PW 2/2. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,63,776/ towards medical bills.
18. The Claimant has not filed any document in support of the fact that he had incurred expenses on keeping an attendant, for conveyance and for extra nutritious diet. However, I guess he must have spent some amount for which he is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/ for Special Diet and Rs. 5,000/ for Conveyance Charges.
19. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and MACT No. 15398/15 13 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the fact that he was under constant treatment, he needed an Attendant to look after him and the petitioner is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that he has received help of special attendant however, some family member must have been attending him. A victim of accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if gratuitous services are under by a family members. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and Anr., MAC APP. No. 762/11 dated 04.07.12. In the circumstances, where the injured had suffered injury, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 10,000/ be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges.
20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the Claimant :
1. Future Loss of Income Rs. 0/
2. Towards Pain Shock & Suffering Rs. 40,000/ 3 Towards Servant / Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/
4. Towards Conveyance & Special diet Rs. 10,000/ 5 Towards medical bills Rs. 2,63,776/ 6 Towards loss of Wages( three months) Rs. 78,312/ Total= Rs. 4,02,088/ I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs. 4,02,088/ rounded to Rs. 4,02,100/ in favour of the Claimant and against Respondents.
Liability:
MACT No. 15398/15 14 of 16
Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
21. 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 respondent 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 respondent No. 1 & 2. Interim award if any paid to injured/ petitioner be adjusted in the award amount.
Award:
22. Resultantly, the claim petition stands allowed. Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,02,100/ within one month to the Claimant. Claimant is also entitled to the interest @ 09 % p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till realization. (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopali & Ors., 2012 ACJ 2131 SC, Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2141 SC, Puttamma Vs. K.L. Naraynan Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 526 SC). Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with UCO Bank, KKD Courts Branch, Delhi and the same be transferred to the Claimant's bank.
23. UCO Bank, KKD Courts is directed to keep the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ in 60 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the maturity period of 1 to 60 months with cumulative interest.
24. All the original FDRs shall be retained by the UCO bank, KKD Courts. However, the statement containing the FDRs number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the UCO Bank to the petitioner/ beneficiary. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary. The beneficiary shall intimate regarding his bank and account MACT No. 15398/15 15 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
number for automatic credit of the maturity amount.
25. No loan, advance or premature discharge of the FDRs shall be permitted without permission of this court.
26. The maturity amount of the FDRs alongwith interest thereon be transferred to the saving bank accounts of the beneficiary at Indusland bank, Branch Preet Vihar, Delhi.
27. The liberty is given to the petitioner/ injured to approach this court for release of further amount in event of any financial exigency.
28. The UCO bank, KKD Court is directed to release the balance amount after keeping Rs. 3,00,000/ in FDRs to the petitioner by transferring the same to his saving bank account with Indusland bank, Branch Preet Vihar, Delhi. On request of Claimant, bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch in the name of petitioner and the bank of the petitioner are directed not to issue any cheque book or Debit Card to the account holder.
29. The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of Insurance Company with a cost of Rs. 10,000/.
30. FormIV shall be read as a part of the judgment.
Announced in open Court on this day of 11th October, 2017 G. N. Pandey Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 15398/15 16 of 16 Tanuj Gupta V/s Afjal & Ors.