Delhi District Court
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 1 Of 17 on 25 January, 2019
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 1 of 17
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL : JUDGE : MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 5121116
MACT PETITION No. : 26116
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010028272016
Sh. Hare Ram Kesri S/o Sh. Dashrath Prashad Kesri
R/o H. No. B50, Naharpur market near D.A.V School,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
........ Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Meer Singh
R/o 898/9, Vivek Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
....... Driver /R1
2. Mother Dairy Fruit Vegetable Ltd.
Delhi.
.......Owner /R2
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Delhi.
..... Insurance co/R3
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.05.2016
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.01.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2019
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 THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH
TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 1 of 17
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 2 of 17
1. Date of the accident 09.11.2015
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 11.05.2016
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 11.05.2016
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 11.05.2016
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 11.05.2016
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 11.05.2016
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? 11.05.2016
(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 N/A
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 11.05.2016
by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Sunil Mohan,
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)Without insurance
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No.
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 N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 2 of 17
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 3 of 17
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer Legal offer not filed.
of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 25.01.2019
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 27.11.2018
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 22.01.2019
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 Hare
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Ram Keshrisavings
IFSC Code (Clause 27) bank a/c no.
757502010006443
with Union Bank of
India, Rani
Sakarpura, Bihar.
IFSC : UBIN0575755
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 to ascertain
his/their financial condition. (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.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 3 of 17
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 4 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 11.05.2016 with reference to FIR No. 1364/15 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Shalimar Bagh in respect of grievous hurt sustained by the petitioner Sh. Hare Ram Keshri in a road accident on 09.11.2015 at about 9:30 pm, Kela Godam Road, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 11.05.2016 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act').
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 09.11.2015 at about 9:30 pm, petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle no. DL8SAZ4712 which was being driven by Sh. Deepak Kumar and was proceeding towards Adarsh Nagar from Rohini, Delhi. When they reached at near AA block, Shalimar Bagh, Kela Godown, Delhi, then a Tanker bearing no. DL1GC0600 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle. Due to said impact, the petitioner fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. It has been stated that petitioner was admitted in Fortis hospital, Delhi and thereafter he was shifted to RML hospital, Delhi. Petitioner sustained crush injuries and compound fracture on his left foot The FIR no.1364/15 PS Shalimar Bagh was registered u/s 279/337 IPC.
3. Sh. Roshan Lal/R1/driver and M/s Mother Dairy Fruit/R2/owner of the offending vehicle have not filed their written statement. They were ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.03.2018.
4. M/s Oriental Insurance Co/R3 has filed its written statement wherein it was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 510000/31/2016/53746 valid for the period from 09.11.2015 to 08.11.2016 i.e. covering the date of accident 09.11.2015.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 4 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 5 of 175. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 15.12.2016 as under :
1. Whether on 09.11.2015 at about 9:30 pm at Kela Godown road, near AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, one Mother Dairy Tanker bearing registration no. DL1GC0600, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Roshan Lal hit the Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAZ4712 and caused injuries to Hare Ram Kesari? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
The petitioner/injured in support of his case has examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Bharat Rattan Jindal, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Saroj Hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi as PW2 The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and ld counsel for insurance co/R3 and have carefully perused the record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
7. 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 his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved his medical documents as Ex. PW1/1 (colly), medical bills as Ex. PW1/2 (colly), future estimate treatment as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) and photograph of injured body portion as Ex. PW1/4 (colly).
PW1/petitioner deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 5 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 6 of 17PW1/A that on 09.11.2015 at about 9:30 pm, he was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle no. DL8SAZ4712 which was being driven by Sh. Deepak Kumar and was proceeding towards Adarsh Nagar from Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that when they reached at near AA block, Shalimar Bagh, Kela Godown, Delhi, then a Tanker bearing no. DL 1GC0600 ( "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle. He deposed that due to said impact, he fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that he was admitted in Fortis hospital, Delhi and thereafter he was shifted to RML hospital, Delhi.
PW1 was not cross examined by R1 and R2 despite opportunity given and his cross examination by R1 and R2 was nil, opportunity given. In the said circumstances, R1 shall be deemed to admit the above said testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused on the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 whereby he sustained injuries.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of insurance co./R3 wherein he inter alia deposed that he was conscious after the accident and that FIR in question was not recorded at his instance. His rest cross examination is not germane to the issue in hand.
Nothing material has come on record in cross examination of PW1 to shake his version regarding the manner in which the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1. The testimony of R1 seems to be reliable and trustworthy.
In the facts and circumstances, the copies of FIR and charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC against respondent no. 1 can also 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 the case accident was not caused due to negligence driving of Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 6 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 7 of 17 offending vehicle by R1. Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record 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 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident in question due to it.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 of the offending vehicle
8. Issue no. 2.
In view of findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that due to the accident, he sustained crush injuries on his left foot, compound fracture left foot and blunt injuries all over the body. He deposed that he was removed to Fortis hospital, Delhi and after that he was shifted to RML hospital. He deposed that he remained admitted there from 10.11.2015 to 22.12.2015. He deposed that during the said period of hospitalization his left leg was operated upon and skin grafting was also done.
Petitioner has examined Dr. Bharat Rattan Jindal, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Saroj hospital, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, Delhi as PW2 who deposed that the document Ex. PW1/3 is the OPD slip of patient whom he examined and on examination found that there was a scar and contracture over foot. He deposed that contracture was the position when the patient was unable to straighten the foot and the foot was in bent condition. He deposed that he advised him for surgery for excision of scar and skin coverage and the said surgery would cost him about Rs. 1,00,000/.
He was cross examined on behalf of insurance co/R3 where he Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 7 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 8 of 17 deposed that he had given a rough estimate Ex. PW1/3 regarding the probable expenditure of surgery. He deposed that he had given him advise for surgery of scar in writing and the same was appearing at point X to X on Ex. PW1/3 and that the estimate Rs. 1,00,000/ was mentioned at point Y on said document.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A Medical Expenses.
The petitioner has proved on record medical bills/record as Ex. PW1/2. The total of medical bills comes to Rs. 16,380/. Therefore, Rs. 16,380/ are granted to the petitioner under this head. B. Special Diet and conveyance PW1 deposed that he had spent Rs. 20,000/ each on conveyance and special diet. During cross examination as conducted on behalf of insurance co/R3, he denied the suggestion that he did not incur said expenses as mentioned in his affidavit.
Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on special diet and conveyance nor proved any bill in that regard. The record of RML hospital Ex. PW1/1 would show that petitioner suffered crush injuries of left foot with compound grade III fracture of calcaneum. The record would show that grafting was also done. In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 35,000/ is granted under the said head. C. Attendant Charges Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on attendant charges nor proved any bill in that regard. As per MLC no. 865 the petitioner suffered grievous injuries. The record of RML hospital Ex. PW1/1 would show that petitioner suffered crush injuries of left foot with compound grade III fracture of calcaneum. The record would show that grafting was also done. Keeping in view the above said injuries, it is evident that the petitioner must have required the services of an attendant. In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 8 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 9 of 17 about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/ is granted under the said head.
D. Pain and Suffering As per MLC no. 865 the petitioner suffered grievous injuries. The record of RML hospital Ex. PW1/1 would show that petitioner suffered crush injuries of left foot with compound grade III fracture of calcaneum. The record would show that grafting was also done. In view of the said discussion, above mentioned injuries suffered by him and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is granted under the said head.
E. Loss of Income Petitioner in his petition stated that at the time of accident he was working as an Ice Cream Seller and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month.
He was cross examined on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he deposed that he had no documentary proof of his earning Rs. 15,000/ per month.
Petitioner has not examined any witness to prove his employment details and monthly income.
Further, petitioner has not proved on record any educational qualification document.
In view of above said discussion, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the injured on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs.9178/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 9178/ per month on the date of accident in question.
As per record, the probable period of treatment of petitioner was about 6 months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs.55,068/ (Rs.9178/x6 months) is granted for 6 months.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 9 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 10 of 17F. Future Estimate Petitioner as PW1 has deposed that the doctors have advised him for prolonged treatment and further surgeries for which he would have to incur at least Rs. 1,00,000/ on his future treatment.
In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he would not require to incur Rs. 1,00,000/ on his future medical treatment.
PW2 Dr. Bharat Rattan Jindal has also deposed that the petitioner has a scar and contracture over his foot and he has advised him surgery for excision of scar and skin coverage which would cost him about Rs. 1,00,000/. The said necessary document has also been proved as Ex. PW1/3 which specifically mentions that there is post traumatic scarring of foot with advise of excision of scar and SSG with estimated cost of surgery of Rs. 1,00,000/. Nothing has appeared in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his testimony.
The photographs of the left foot of the petitioner have also been proved as Ex. PW1/4 which would clearly show scarring of his left foot.
In facts, photographs on record, testimony of PW2 and Ex. PW1/3, Rs. 1,00,000/ are granted to the petitioner towards future estimated cost of plastic surgery on his foot.
G. Disfiguration/deformity.
As per MLC no. 865 the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The record of RML hospital Ex. PW1/1 would show that petitioner suffered crush injuries of left foot with compound grade III fracture of calcaneum. The record would show that grafting was also done. PW2 Dr. Bharat Rattan Jindal has deposed that the petitioner has a scar and contracture over his foot and he had advised him surgery for excision of scar and skin coverage. Ex. PW1/3 also specifically mentions that there is post traumatic scarring of foot with advise of excision of scar and SSG. The photographs of the left foot of the petitioner have also been proved as Ex. PW1/4 which would clearly show very large scarring of his left foot. The said photographs clearly show that he has suffered disfiguration/deformity of left Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 10 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 11 of 17 foot.
In facts, photographs on record, testimony of PW2 and record, Rs. 50,000/ are granted to the petitioner towards disfiguration/deformity in left foot.
9. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs. 3,36,448/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 35,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 30,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 16,380/
5. Loss of income Rs. 55,068/
6. Future Estimate Rs. 1,00,000/
7. Disfiguration/deformity Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs. 3,36,448/ Rounded of to Rs. 3,37,000/ ( Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f 11.05.2016 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 from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
10. Liability In the case in hand, the Oriental Insurance co./R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 who was the driver 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/R3, Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 11 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 12 of 17 hence R3 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., Oriental Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 3,37,000/ 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 R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 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.
It is clarified that as Rs.1,00,000/ have been granted towards future estimated cost of plastic surgery on his foot , hence, no interest is granted on it as it pertains to future expenditure.
APPORTIONMENT
11. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 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 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. 50,000/ be released to petitioner in cash in his saving bank a/c no. 757502010006443 with Union Bank of India, Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 12 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 13 of 17 Rani SAkarpura branch, Bihar 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. 842/2013 dated 15.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 and remaining amount be kept in 24 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 24 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 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(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 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 13 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 14 of 17 disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
12. Relief Oriental Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 3,37,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 11.05.2016 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 R3/insurance to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the Reliance General Insurance co./R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Oriental Insurance co./R3 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 R3 for compliance within the granted time. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
13. 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 12.12.2014.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 14 of 17 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 15 of 17In 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 petitioner 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.
14. 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. The insurance co./R3 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioner from the record.
Digitally
signed by
AMIT BANSAL
AMIT Date:
BANSAL 2019.01.28
11:01:13
+0530
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 25th January 2019 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 15 of 17
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 16 of 17
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 09.11.2015
2. Name of injured Sh. Hare Ram Kesri
3. Age of the injured 37 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Self Employed
5. Income of the injured. 9178/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 6 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 7 days.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 16,380/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 30,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 55,068/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Rs. 1,00,000/ towards future estimated cost of plastic special treatment or aid to the injured for surgery on his foot.
the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 16 of 17
Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 17 of 17
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/
(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. 3,37,000/(interest is granted on Rs. 2,37,000/ as no interest is granted on Rs.
1,00,000/ future estimated
cost of plastic surgery on his
foot.)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 56,876/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 3,93,876/
18. Award amount released Rs. 50,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 3,43,876/
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. 13.03.2019 Digitally signed (Clause 31) by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2019.01.28 11:01:25 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. 25.01.2019 Hare Ram Kesari vs Roshan Lal Page 17 of 17