Delhi District Court
G P Sharma vs . M/S Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. on 8 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. 2961/16
FIR No. 365/2000
PS: H N Din
G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors.
Injury Case
Shri G P Sharma S/o Late Pt. Amit Prasad Sharma,
R/o G58, East of Kailash, New Delhi65.
.................... Petitioner/Claimant
Versus
1. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace (Owner)
Shop No. 21, Hotel LeMeridien,
Windsor Palace, Janpath, New Delhi.
2. Shri Abdul Momin (Driver)
C/o M/s Jaipur Gems Palace,
Shop No. 21, Hotel LeMeridien,
Windsor Palace, Janpath, New Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer),
Oriental House, A225/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi02.
.....................Respondents
Initial date of Institution : 07.03.2003 Date of reserving the judgment : 02.05.2017 Date of pronouncement the judgment : 08.05.2017 Judgment:
1. Claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act was filed by the petitioner Shri G P Sharma in regard to injuries suffered by him in a road MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 1 of 16) vehicular accident. Earlier, claim petition was disposed off vide Judgment passed by learned predecessor of this Tribunal on 07.03.2012. Aggrieved by Judgment dated 07.03.2012, petitioner Shri G P Sharma moved an application under Section 114 of CPC on 08.06.2012 for review of Judgment dated 07.03.2012. However, said application for review of Judgment was rejected by the learned predecessor of this Tribunal on 22.01.2013. Thereafter, petitioner Shri G P Sharma moved an Appeal (MAC Appeal No. 445/13) titled 'G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Anr.' under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order dated 01.12.2016 passed in abovesaid Appeal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the Judgment dated 07.03.2012 and matter was remanded back with directions to record additional evidence of appellant and to give opportunity to respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal. It was directed that a fresh Award be passed by this Tribunal. Pursuant to directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, claim petition is now decided afresh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2000, petitioner alongwith his housekeeper Shri Ram Bahadur was going towards Sunder Nagar in his gypsy bearing registration No. DNU11. At about 12.10 PM, when he reached on the flyover of Oberoi Hotel, left tyre of his gypsy got punctured. Petitioner and his housekeeper got off the car to replace the tyre. As they were about to sit back in abovesaid gypsy, petitioner saw a speeding while color maruti zen car bearing registration No. DL4CD1663 coming towards him. Within seconds, said car hit petitioner and his housekeeper. Both petitioner and his housekeeper suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to Shahi Hospital. Housekeeper of petitioner i.e. Shri Ram Bahadur succumbed to his injuries on the date of accident itself. However, petitioner was shifted to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 2 of 16)
3. Legal heirs of deceased Ram Bahadur (who also received injuries alongwith petitioner Shri G P Sharma) filed separate claim petition for claiming compensation regarding death of Shri Ram Bahadur in road accident, which was settled between wife of deceased Shri Ram Bahadur and respondent No. 1 and 2 on 25.01.2005.
4. FIR number 365/2000 under Section 279/337 IPC was got registered at PS H N Din. Police conducted investigation and 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 279/338/304A of Indian Penal Code.
5. During proceedings, respondent No. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement asserting that no such accident as alleged by petitioner has ever taken place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2. It is asserted that vehicle in question was duly insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the date of alleged accident and liability to pay compensation, if any, is that of said Insurance Company. All the allegations made in claim petition are denied by answering respondents.
6. During proceedings, written statement was filed by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company asserting that insurance policy of alleged offending vehicle was obtained fraudulently after the alleged accident on 26.07.2000 at about 04.55 PM while the accident occurred on 26.07.2000 at about 12.10 PM. It is asserted that alleged offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and for the same reason, answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Vide proceedings dated 15.02.2006, learned predecessor of MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 3 of 16) this Tribunal observed that offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and deleted the name of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company from the array of parties.
7. Following issues were framed by learned predecessor of this Tribunal in respect of petitioner Shri G P Sharma as well as deceased Shri Ram Bahadur on 18.09.2014: (1) Whether Late Ram Bahadur suffered fatal injuries and G P Sharma (Suit No. 600/04) suffered injuries on 26.07.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen DL4CD1663 on the part of R2 Abdul Monin? (2) What amount of compensation are the LRs of Ram Bahadur and injured G P Sharma in these two separate claim petitions entitled and from whom?
(3) Whether insurance policy in this case was obtained in fraudulent manner at 04.55 PM on 26.07.2000 after Mauti Zen DL4CD1663 had already been involved in the road accident at 12.10 PM on that day and if so to what effect? OPR3 (4) Relief.
8. Perusal of Issue No. 1 shows that date of accident is wrongly mentioned as '26.07.2004' whereas correct date of accident is '26.07.2000'. Hence, said error is now rectified and date of accident in Issue No. 1 shall be read as '26.07.2000'.
9. During the course of proceedings, petition was dismissedindefault for non appearance on 30.09.2009. Thereafter, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of petitioner G P Sharma on MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 4 of 16) 03.11.2009 for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2009 and restoration of claim petition. Said application was directed to be put up with case file on 07.11.2009. On 07.11.2009, notice of application was directed to be issued to respondents. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.05.2011 passed by learned predecessor of this Tribunal, application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of petitioner G P Sharma was allowed and claim petition was was restored to its original number and position. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for any interest w.e.f. 30.09.2009 till 11.05.2011.
10. Before passing of Judgment dated 07.03.2012, following witnesses were examined by parties:
i) Petitioner Shri G P Sharma got himself examined as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/X and relied upon documents collectively marked as Annexure A. PW1 was duly crossexamined by the counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2.
ii) Respondent No. 2 Abdul Momin got himself examined as R1W1 and deposed that he has no connection with this case. He has not caused any accident. No accident has been caused by his vehicle No. 1663 and he does not remember the alphabetical number before the numeric number of Maruti Zen.
R1W1 was duly crossexamined by the counsel for petitioner.
11. After the case was remanded back by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, following witnesses were examined by parties:
i) Petitioner Shri G P Sharma got examined his General Power of Attorney Holder as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon certain documents i.e. General Power of Attorney executed by petitioner in favour of PW2 is Ex. PW2/1, medical bills are collectively Ex.
PW2/2, medical prescription is Ex. PW2/3, medical bills are collectively Ex.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 5 of 16) PW2/4. PW2 was duly crossexamined by the counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2.
ii) Respondent No. 2 Abdul Momin got himself examined as R2W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A. R2W1 was duly cross examined by the counsel for petitioner.
12. No other witness was examined either by petitioner or by respondents.
13. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issuewise findings are as follows: Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
14. PW1 in his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/X) categorically stated that he got injuries due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2. Nothing came in the crossexamination of PW1 which may create doubt on his testimony regarding rashness and negligence on part of respondent No. 2.
15. Respondent No. 2 Abdul Momin got himself examined as R1W1 before passing of Judgment dated 07.03.2012 and also as R2W1 after the case was remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. When respondent No. 2 got himself examined as R1W1, he deposed that he has no connection with this case and he has not caused any accident. However, respondents settled separate claim filed by legal heirs of deceased Ram Bahadur (who also received injuries alongwith petitioner Shri G P Sharma) with wife of deceased Shri Ram Bahadur for a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/ on 25.01.2005. R1W1 Abdul Momin has also admitted the same during his crossexamination on 06.09.2011 that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/ to the widow of deceased Ram Bahadur. Though R1W1 has deposed that he paid abovesaid amount not towards compensation, but as MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 6 of 16) khairat with the sole intention to help widow of deceased as police officials left the widow of deceased at his door step and created pressure on him to help her, but the proceedings dated 25.01.2005 clearly shows that respondents settled the claim of legal heirs of deceased Ram Bahadur and paid Rs.1,50,000/ in discharge of their liability to pay compensation and not as any khairat. Had accident was not caused by respondent No. 2, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 2 to pay compensation to legal heirs of deceased Ram Bahadur. R1W1 Abdul Momin has also admitted during his crossexamination that FIR was registered against him for which he was arrested and released on bail. Though respondent No. 2 got himself examined on two different occasions, but he never deposed or produced any document to show that he had taken any steps or filed any complaint before any authority against his false implication in the criminal case which compels the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against him. Further, certified copy of charge sheet Ex. PW1/2 shows that after due investigation, police found respondent No. 2 accused of rash and negligent driving and he was chargesheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338/304A IPC. It was argued that petitioner has failed to identify respondent No. 2 in criminal case and respondent No. 2 has already been acquitted from the charges of Section 279/337/304A IPC. However, perusal of charge sheet Ex. PW1/2 shows that offending vehicle was seized from the spot and driver/respondent No. 2 was also apprehended from the spot. As for acquittal of respondent No. 2 from criminal court, conclusion of criminal court does not affect claim proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act.
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)], MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 7 of 16) 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.
17. In view of the above discussion, petitioner is able to prove that he suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation):
18. Medical Expenses: PW1 Shri G P Sharma has deposed that after the accident, he was taken to Sahi Hospital, New Delhi. PW2 Shri Himanshu MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 8 of 16) Sharma (Attorney as well as son of petitioner Shri G P Sharma) has relied upon certified copy of medical document of petitioner issued from Sahi Hospital, Mathura Road, Jangpura, New Delhi as Ex. PW2/3 wherein it is mentioned that 'Mr. Gyan P. Sharma aged 75 years was brought to the hospital on 26.07.2000 with H/o RTA (hit by a car). On examination he was found conscious, well oriented with severe chest pain and multiple abrasion in hands and head. On investigation multiple fracture of ribs DM was detected. Advised CT Scan head for which the attendants got him referred to other institution on 27.07.00' and nature of injury was opined to be 'serious'. Hence, as per Ex. PW2/3, it is proved that petitioner Shri G P Sarhama suffered serious injuries in accident dated 26.07.2000.
19. Perusal of case file shows that a Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 of petitioner Shri G P Sharma issued from Apollo Hospital, New Delhi is on record and perusal of the same shows that petitioner remained admitted in the said hospital from 17.07.2006 to 27.07.2006. However, it is mentioned in Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 that petitioner was diagnosed with 'Type2 Diabetic MellitusUncontrolled, CAD with poor LV function (LVEF 25%), Statuspost cardiac arrest, PTCAsevere anemia? Secondary to GI bleed needs to be followed up'. Hence, Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 is not related to the injuries suffered by the petitioner in this accident since diagnosis shows that petitioner was admitted for follow up after cardiac arrest in 2004 being a diabetic patient, though in the medical history section 'RTA with head injury' is mentioned. In such circumstances, medical bills collectively Ex. PW2/2 in the sum of Rs.1,25,406/ for admission of petitioner Shri G P Sharma in Apollo Hospital, New Delhi from 17.07.2006 to 27.07.2006 cannot be considered for reimbursement.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 9 of 16)
20. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was shifted from Sahi Hospital, New Delhi to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 27.07.2000 and remained admitted there till 11.08.2000 and during this period petitioner was kept on ventilator from 30.07.2000 to 31.07.2000 and a bilateral tube had to be inserted into his chest. It was also argued that petitioner was again admitted in Apollo Hospital on 26.10.2000 due to blood collection in brain and undergone a surgical evacuation of blood collection on 27.10.200 and was discharged on 01.11.2000. It was further argued that injuries suffered by petitioner were so severe that petitioner had to be taken for treatment to USA where he was hospitalized and was operated. Though counsel for petitioner has argued in detail about the medical treatment of petitioner, but medical prescriptions/ discharge summary showing abovesaid treatment undergone by petitioner is not filed on record. However, PW2 Shri Himanshu Sharma has relied upon original medical bills of petitioner Shri G P Sharma which are collectively Ex. PW2/4 and perusal of the same shows that there is an original medical bill dated 01.11.2000 issued from Apollo Hospital on record wherein it is mentioned that petitioner remained admitted in Apollo Hospital from 26.10.2000 to 01.11.2000. In medical bills collectively Ex. PW2/4, there is another original medical bill dated 11.08.2000 issued from Apollo Hospital on record wherein it is mentioned that petitioner remained admitted in Apollo Hospital from 27.07.2000 to 11.08.2000. Similarly, medical bills collectively Ex. PW2/4 shows that there is one original medical bill dated 03.09.2005 issued from Ark Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana is on record for hospitalization of petitioner from 03.08.2005 to 01.09.2005 and there is one other original bill dated 14.08.2000 issued from Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital, New Delhi is on record regarding hospitalization of petitioner from 13.08.2000 to 14.08.2000. Medical bills collectively Ex. PW2/4 further shows that there are MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 10 of 16) two original medicals bills dated 08.09.2005 and 17.09.2005 issued from Sukhda Hospital, GKI, New Delhi on record in respect of hospitalization of petitioner from 03.09.2005 to 08.09.2005 and from 12.09.2005 to 17.09.2005. Original medical bills dated 27.07.2000 issued from Sahi Hospital, New Delhi is also on record which shows that petitioner remained admitted from 26.07.2000 to 27.07.2000. Though no medical prescription/ treatment document/ discharge summary of petitioner except Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 is filed on record, but original medical bills substantiate the claim of petitioner regarding medical expenses incurred by him on his treatment.
21. It is pertinent to mention here that original medical bill dated 03.09.2005 issued from Ark Hospital in the sum of Rs.51,870/ is on record and two receipts dated 02.09.2015 and 01.09.2015 in respect of advance payment of said bill is also on record and for the same reason only bill in the sum of Rs.51,870/ shall be considered for reimbursement and not its receipts since it will lead to doubling of medical expenses. Similarly, original medical bill dated 27.07.2000 of Rs.15,620/ issued from Sahi Hospital and its payment receipt of Rs.15,620/ is also on record. Hence, only original bill dated 27.07.2000 can be considered for reimbursement. Further, original medical bills of Sukhda Hospital are on record and receipts of Rs.23,367/ and Rs.36,290/ regarding payment of said bills are also filed on record. Hence, only Rs.23,367/ and Rs.36,290/ can be considered for reimbursement for medical bills issued from Sukhda Hospital. There are some handwritten receipts of New Friends Co. on record, but said receipts cannot be considered since purpose for issuance of said receipts is not mentioned on them. PW2 Shri Himanshu Sharma has relied upon medical bills collectively PW2/4 totaling to Rs.5,12,814.48. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.5,15,000/ towards medical expenses.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 11 of 16)
22. Compensation for Pain & Sufferings: Petitioner is a senior citizen and has suffered fracture injuries and was hospitalized on many occasions, therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and trauma of accident, a sum of Rs.35,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
23. Loss of income during treatment: As per claim petition, petitioner Shri G P Sharma was selfemployed as Lawyer and was earning Rs.2,00,000/ per annum. However, perusal of record shows that there is nothing on record regarding monthly or annual income of petitioner on record. If claim of petitioner is believed that he was a practicing lawyer, then his income can be assessed on the basis of minimum wages for Graduate at the time of accident, which was Rs.3,179/ per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner, it can be accepted that he would have taken rest for about 6 months. Hence, the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.3,179/ X 6 = Rs.19,074/. Accordingly, petitioner is granted Rs.19,074/ towards loss of income during treatment.
24. Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance Charges: Petitioner has not filed any documents for proving the expenses incurred by him on special diet, attendance and conveyance. However, keeping in mind the injuries suffered by petitioner, a sum of Rs.5,000/ each is granted to the petitioner towards conveyance, attendant and Special diet. Thus, total sum of Rs.15,000/ is granted under this head.
25. The total compensation is assessed for injured as under: MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 12 of 16) 1 Compensation for medical expenses Rs.5,15,000/ 2 Compensation for pain & suffering Rs.35,000/ Compensation for special diet, attendant & Rs.15,000/ 3 conveyance 4 Loss of income during treatment Rs.19,074/ Total Rs.5,84,074/ Issue No. 3
26. Vide order dated 15.02.2006, learned predecessor of this Tribunal observed that offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and deleted the name of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company from the array of parties. Since respondent No. 3/Insurance Company already stands discharged, Issue No. 3 becomes redundant.
Relief:
27. The petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.5,84,074/ (Rupees Five Lac Eighty Four Thousand and Seventy Four Only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition (excluding interest w.e.f. 30.09.2009 till 11.05.2011), 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.
28. Offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. Respondent No. 2/ driver and respondent No. 1/ owner are jointly and vicariously liable to pay compensation to petitioner. Respondents are 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.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 13 of 16)
29. Respondents are 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 respondents shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period). Claimant/ petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account to Branch Manager, state Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
30. Respondents shall intimate to the claimant/ petitioner about it having deposited the cheque 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.
31. Copy of this award/judgment be given to all concerned 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.
32. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 26.07.2000.
2 Date of intimation of the accident by Not applicable.
the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident by Not applicable.
the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Section Not known.
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Accident occurred in the year MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 14 of 16) Information Report (DAR) by the 2000. There was no provision Investigating Officer before Claims of filing DAR in the year Tribunal. 2000.
6 Date of service of DAR on the Accident occurred in the year Insurance Company. 2000. There was no provision of filing DAR in the year 2000.
7 Date of service of DAR on the Accident occurred in the year claimant(s). 2000. There was no provision of filing DAR in the year 2000.
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Accident occurred in the year respects? 2000. There was no provision of filing DAR in the year 2000.
9 If not, state deficiencies in the DAR? Accident occurred in the year 2000. There was no provision of filing DAR in the year 2000.
10 Whether the police has verified the Accident occurred in the year documents filed with DAR? 2000. There was no provision of filing DAR in the year 2000.
11 Whether there was any delay or Accident occurred in the year deficiency on the part of the 2000. There was no provision Investigating Officer? If so, whether of filing DAR in the year any action/ direction warranted? 2000.
12 Date of appointment of the Accident occurred in the year Designated Officer by the Insurance 2000. There was no provision Company. of filing DAR in the year 2000.
13 Name, address and contact number of Accident occurred in the year the Designated Officer of the 2000. There was no provision Insurance Company. of filing DAR in the year 2000.
14 Whether the Designated Officer of Accident occurred in the year the Insurance Company submitted 2000. There was no provision his report within 30 days of the DAR? of filing DAR in the year 2000.
15 Whether the Insurance Company Offending vehicle was admitted the liability? If so, whether uninsured.
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 15 of 16) the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or Accident occurred in the year deficiency on the part of the 2000. There was no provision Designated Officer of the Insurance of filing DAR in the year Company? If so, whether any 2000.
action/direction warranted?.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to No legal offer was filed.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
18 Date of the award. 08.05.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed with No. the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined at Petitioner was not examined at
the time of passing of the award to the time of passing of award,
ascertain his/their financial but his financial condition was
condition? asked and according to his
financial condition and age,
award amount is released.
21 Whether the photographs, specimen Photograph and other requisite
signatures, proof of residence and information was already on
particulars of bank account of the record.
injured/legal heirs of the deceased
taken at the time of passing of the
award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the award Entire award amount is
amount to the claimant(s). directed to be released
immediately after deposit in
the State Bank of India.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 05.07.2017.
award.
Announced in open Court
Dated: 08.05.2017 (Madhu Jain)
POMACT02/(South East District)
Saket, New Delhi/08.05.2017
MACT No. 2961/16 G P Sharma Vs. M/s Jaipur Gems Palace & Ors. (Pg 16 of 16)