Delhi District Court
Sh. Manish Thakran vs Sh. Ramesh on 17 December, 2018
MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 4986/16 (Old MACP No. 258/12)
Sh. Manish Thakran,
S/o Sh. Rishi Pal,
R/o V.P.O Nangal Thakran,
Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ramesh,
S/o Sh. Shubh Ram,
R/o. H.No. 714,
Village Moti Bagh,
Nanak Pura,
Delhi (Driver)
2. Sh. Girish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Jaswant Rai,
R/o R533,
New Rajinder Nagar,
Delhi (Registered Owner) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.08.2012 Date of Arguments : 29.11.2018 Date of Award :17.12.2018 APPEARANCES: Sh. H.R. Jha, Adv for petitioner.
Sh. S.S. Shukla, Adv for respondent no. 1.
Sh. Yogesh Kumar Narula, Adv for respondent no. 2.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 1 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/ with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization, for the injuries sustained by him in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 pm at Main Road, Opposite Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Bawana, Delhi, involving Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379(alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner.
2. It is averred in the claim petition that on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 pm, the petitioner alongwith his friend, was going towards his Village Nangal Thakran from Bawana on motorcycle no. DL11SB3091. The said motorcycle was being driven by the petitioner and his friend was sitting as pillion rider on it. When they reached at Main Road, Opposite Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Bawana, Delhi, one Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and tried to overtake some other car. In that process, the aforesaid car hit against the aforesaid motorcycle. As a result thereof, they both fell down on the road. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. He was removed to M.V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi, where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was admitted at Fortis Hospital, Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 2 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It is further averred that the petitioner was working as Security Guard and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/ at the time of accident. FIR No. 176/12, U/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Bawana in respect of the accident in question. The said vehicle i.e. Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379 was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and it was found to be not insured at the time of accident in question.
3. It may be noted here that Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also filed by the police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 176/12 (supra) on 09.08.12. Same was ordered to be merged with claim petition vide order dated 20.11.12 passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
4. In his WS, the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver has raised preliminary objections that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the petitioner and against him. He has claimed that the petitioner has concealed the material facts and has filed the present claim petition to extort money from him. He has also claimed that the petition is bad for mis joinder and nonjoinder of the parties. On merits, he has claimed that the petitioner was coming from opposite direction on single road, while driving his motorcycle in zigzag manner and in rash and negligent manner and on seeing him, he had stopped his vehicle on side of the road but petitioner continued to drive his vehicle in same manner, due to which he could not control his bike and collided with his car and fell down due to his own negligent act. He has denied that accident had occurred due to rash and Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 3 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 negligent driving of car no. DL6CC6379 by him. Rest of the averments have been simply denied by him and he has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. In his WS, the respondent no. 2 i.e. registered owner has claimed that no accident took place involving car bearing no. DL6CC6379 for want of knowledge and as such, the present claim petition is without any cause of action. He further claimed that he had sold the said car bearing no. DL6CC6379 to respondent no. 1 on 25.02.11 i.e. much prior to the alleged accident. The intimation regarding sale of said vehicle, had already been given to the police by him. Thus, he is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioner. On merits, he has simply denied the averments made in the claim petition and has prayed for its dismissal.
6. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor vide order dated 18.07.2013:
1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road side accident occurred on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 pm at Main Road Bawana opposite Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/ driver of offending vehicle no. DL6CC6379?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so to what extent and from which of the respondents?OPP.
3. Relief.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 4 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
7. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Specialist Orthopedic, SRHC Hospital. He closed PE on 18.05.2017 through his counsel. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by respondent no. 1 despite grant of repeated opportunities and ultimately, his RE was closed on 26.09.17. However, the respondent no. 2 has examined himself as R2W1 and closed his evidence on 26.09.17 through his counsel.
8. It may be noted here that the respondent no. 1 had moved an application u/o 17 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead evidence. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.18 passed by this Claims Tribunal. It may also be mentioned here that said respondent was granted several opportunities on his request that he wanted to challenge the said order before Ld. Superior Court but he failed to do so and ultimately, final arguments were heard and present award is being passed.
9. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV B, vide order dated 29.11.18 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 5 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 ISSUE NO. 1
10. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Manish (injured himself) is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), he has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petition that on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 pm, he alongwith his friend, was going towards his Village Nangal Thakran from Bawana on motorcycle no. DL11SB3091. The said motorcycle was being driven by him and his friend was sitting as pillion rider on it. When they reached at Main Road, Opposite Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Bawana, Delhi, one Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and tried to overtake some other car. In that process, the said car hit against the aforesaid motorcycle. As a result thereof, they both fell down on the road and he sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. He was removed to M.V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi, where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was admitted at Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents
1. Medical Bills and Ex. PW1/1(colly) treatment papers
2. Copy of his voter I card Ex.PW1/2
3. DAR Ex.PW1/3(colly) Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 6 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
11. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that he was driving motorcycle on the day of accident. He was holding valid DL, copy of which is Ex. R2/1. He had started his journey from Bawana at about 8:30 pm and was going towards his home at Nangal Thakran, Delhi. One of his friend namely Manish S/o Sh. Anand had also accompanied him on the date of accident. They both were wearing helmets. He became unconscious immediately after the accident. He could not tell as to who had removed him to the hospital for his treatment. He could not tell whether the respondent no. 1 was also the owner of car bearing no. DL6CC6379. He denied the suggestion that the registered owner has nothing to do with the car bearing no. DL6CC6379 because he had already sold the said vehicle to the respondent no. 1/Ramesh.
12. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross examination. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to why he would depose falsely against respondent no.1. Moreover, FIR No. 176/12(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) is also shown to have been registered on the statement of Sh. Manish S/o Sh. Anand Singh. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant Sh. Manish has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident, as deposed by PW1 during the course of inquiry. Even otherwise, the Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 7 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 respondents have not led any evidence in order to rebut the testimony of PW1 during the course of inquiry. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of this witness made on oath.
13. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid Car, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box and to stay away from the proceedings during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing no. DL6CC6379 by him.
14. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 176/12 (supra) was registered at PS. Bawana with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR (which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly), would show that FIR was registered on 27.05.12 (date of accident being 26.05.12 at 9:00 pm). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379 at the instance of petitioner herein.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 8 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
15. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Ramesh (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car bearing registration no. DL6CC6379 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
16. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) of injured prepared at M.V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi, shows that he had been removed to said hospital on 26.05.2012 at 9.10 pm with alleged history of RTA. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents.
17. Furthermore, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 30.05.2012 (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) of Car No. DL6CC6379, would show that there were fresh damages i.e. its front bumper and body damaged from left side; its front left side indicator light was damaged and its bonnet dented from front left side. Likewise, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 30.05.2012 (which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) of Motorcycle No. DL11SB3091 of victim, would show that there Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 9 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 were fresh damages i.e. its left side leg guard and gear shift lever were damaged and its right side body was scratched. Said reports, which have gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, also corroborate the ocular testimony of PW1 to the aforesaid extent. Moreover, the offending Car is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from copy of its seizure memo dated 27.05.12 (date of accident being 26.05.12 at 9:00 pm)(which is also part of DAR).
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 26.05.2012 at about 9:00 pm at Main Road, Opposite Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Bawana, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing no. DL6CC6379 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
19. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 10 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 MEDICAL EXPENSES
20. PW1 Sh. Manish i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to M.V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi, where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He further deposed that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture lower half of left leg femur with displacement of distal fragment. He deposed to have spent about Rs. 3,00,000/ on his medical treatment. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that he was removed to M.V. Hospital after the accident and thereafter, he went to Fortis Hospital for further treatment. He remained there whole night and was discharged in the next morning. He went to Navjeevan Hospital, near Mangolpuri after his discharge from Fortis Hospital. No discharge slip of Fortis Hospital has been placed on record and only bill issued to him was placed on record. He had not placed any medical treatment record pertaining to Navjeevan Hospital. He had also not placed on record any medical prescription regarding the purchase of medicines. He remained admitted in Navjeevan Hospital for about 2 days immediately after discharge from Fortis Hospital and his surgery was conducted at Navjeevan Hospital. After discharge from Navjeevan Hospital, he was admitted in the clinic of the same doctor who had operated him and remained there for 7 days. He used to visit the hospital on alternative days for his followup checkup for about one month. Thereafter, he remained at home under Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 11 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 treatment. No other treatment was taken from any other doctor or hospital except as stated above. He could not tell whether he took treatment from Dr. Surender or Dr. Virender. The doctor of clinic used to charge him for every visit. The charges were being paid by his father so he could not tell per day charge of the doctor. He could not tell how much amount was paid to Navjeevan Hospital by his father. He also could not tell on which date and when his father paid the hospital bill to any doctor or any hospital. He had visited more than 20 times for his treatment. He denied the suggestion that he was not taking any medicines as alleged by him in his affidavit. He further denied the suggestion that bills filed by him on record, were false and fabricated and were not supported with any medical record or prescription. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 3 Lacs on his treatment.
21. It is relevant to note that the pertitioner has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 2,11,056.71 paise only, which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 (colly). Out of said bills, few bills are regarding purchase of fruits and do not contain the name of injured. Moreover, the said bills are dated 20.08.12, 30.09.12 and 27.10.12, whereas the accident had occurred on 26.05.12. Hence, amount of said three bills can not be awarded to the petitioner. However, it is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the remaining bills during the course of inquiry. They have not led any evidence in rebuttal on said aspect. The petitioner has filed remaining medical bills amounting to Rs.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 12 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 2,05,856/. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,05,856/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
22. Injured namely Sh. Manish (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he was employed as Security Guard and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he could not attend his job. He was bed ridden for more than 6 months due to this accident. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that he had never applied for the service of police or army prior to the accident. He denied the suggestion that due to his height, he was not competent to join police and armed forces. He was 12 th class passed. He used to work in a factory as a servant. He was getting about Rs. 8,000/ to Rs. 9,000/ per month as salary from that company. He had not placed on record any salary slip or appointment letter regarding his job. He used to get salary in cash. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing any work and was not earning anything at the time of accident.
23. The detailed bill (which is part of Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Fortis Hospital, Delhi in respect of petitioner/injured, would reveal that he was admitted in the said hospital on 26.05.12 and was discharged on 27.05.2012. XRay Left Ankle (AP/LAT.VIEWS), which is part of medical Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 13 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 record of Fortis Hospital would show that the injured had suffered fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. Said part of testimony of PW1 has also gone unchallanged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents in this regard.
24. Apart from the aforesaid documents produced by PW1 i.e. the petitioner, he has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the exact period upto which he had received the medical treatment. Nevertheless, it can not be overlooked that the petitioner had suffered fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. He is also shown to have sustained permanent disability of 52% in relation to his left lower limb, vide Disability Certificate (Ex. PW2/1) and in view of ocular testimony of PW2. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of the treatment record brought on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of six months or so.
25. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured fairly conceded that for want of any cogent evidence with regard to monthly income of injured/petitioner, his income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The petitioner has not filed any document in respect of his educational qualification. In these circumstances, the minimum wages of an unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act during the period in question, has to be taken into Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 14 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 consideration. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs. 7,020/ per month as on the date of accident which is 26.05.2012. Thus, a sum of Rs. 42,120/ (Rs.7,020/ x 6) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head and against the respondents.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
26. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
27. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he had sustained grievous injuries. As already noted above, his treatment record as available on file, would show that he had sustained fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. Not only this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 15 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 permanent disability to the extent of 52% in relation to his left lower limb. Apart from the fact that the relevant portion of his testimony in this regard, has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is duly corroborated by his medical treatment record (Ex. PW1/1 colly) as well as Disability Certificate(Ex. PW2/1) filed by him and the ocular testimony of PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta of SRHC Hospital. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on "IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arjun & Ors.", MAC APP. No. 01/2013, decided on 04.01.2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
28. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. He has also sustained permanent disability of 52% in relation to his left lower limb, which is duly established from the Disability Certificate (Ex. PW2/1) issued by SRHC Hospital, Delhi as well as from the ocular testimony of PW2 who was one of the members of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 16 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on "IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arjun & Ors.", MAC APP. No. 01/2013, decided on 04.01.2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
29. Although, the petitioner/injured as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he had spent Rs. 50,000/ on account of special diet, Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 60,000/ on account of attendant but he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture lower half of left femur with displacement of distal fragment. He has also sustained permanent disability of 52% in relation to his right lower limb, which is duly established from the Disability Certificate (Ex. PW2/1) issued by SRHC Hospital, Delhi as well as from the ocular testimony of PW2 who was one of the members of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 17 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/ for conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each for special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
30. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 52% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 13.12.2014 (Ex. PW2/1) of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner has also testified in this regard while examining himself as PW1 during inquiry. He has not been crossexamined by the respondents on this aspect.
31. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, who was one of the members of Medical Board constituted at SRHC Hospital, the petitioner was found to have suffered 52% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He deposed that the aforesaid Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to improve. He exhibited the Disability Certificate as Ex. PW2/1. He had also brought the calculation chart with disability evaluation details and exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/2. He deposed that on account of nature and extent Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 18 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 of disability sustained by the claimant Manish, he would have mild to moderate difficulty in walking, in standing, in going up and down on the stairs and would also have moderate to severe problem in squatting, in crossleg sitting and in kneeling etc. He can not drive any type of vehicle on account of aforesaid disability in future. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 2, he deposed that he had never given any treatment to the patient namely Manish. The said patient approached him first time when he came for issuance of disability certificate to him. He could not say if the deformity of the kind sustained by aforesaid patient, was possible due to falling down from height or not as the patient. He admitted that except for the left lower limb, all other remaining three limbs of the aforesaid patient were working properly. He admitted that the aforesaid patient was still in a position to perform any kind of work in sitting position. He volunteered that sitting on chair and not on floor. The aforesaid patient can walk with the help of support system. He denied the suggestion that the disability mentioned in Certificate Ex. PW2/1 has not been assessed in conformity with the guidelines issued by Ministry of Health. Respondent no. 1 did not crossexamine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
32. The disability certificate (Ex. PW2/1) of injured would reveal that he had suffered 52% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. He was doing the work of Security Guard prior to the accident in question. Thus, it would not be possible for him to engage himself in the avocation of Security Guard or in any kind of employment requiring Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 19 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 movement of lower limbs or even to do his day to day activities himself. Taking the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of injuries sustained by claimant and the kind of avocation he was doing at the time of accident, his functional disability is taken as 35% in relation to whole body.
33. In copy of driving licence (Ex. PW1/R2/1) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 15.11.1993. The date of accident is 26.05.2012. In view of said document, his age was about 19 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
34. The notional monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 7,020/ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 2,457/(Rs. 7,020/ x 35/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 7,42,997/ (rounded off) (Rs. 2,457/ x 140/100 x 12 x
18). (Reliance placed on Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 571 and unreported decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in " The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Arora & Ors.", MAC APP No. 320/2013 decided on 28.09.18). Thus, a sum of Rs. 7,42,997/ is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 20 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 Thus, t he total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,05,856/
2. Loss of income Rs. 42,120/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,50,000/ enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 25,000/ attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 7,42,997/ Total Rs. 13,15,973/ Rounded off to Rs. 13,16,000/
35. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. While opening the arguments, counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that respondent no. 2 has not been able to establish that he had already sold the offending car to respondent no. 1 or to any other person prior to the date of accident. Therefore, he is still jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. He further argued that in any case, the said vehicle was still registered in the name of respondent no. 2 as on the date of accident and therefore, he is equally liable to pay the compensation amount under the law.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 21 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
36. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of respondent no. 2 that since he had already sold the offending car to respondent no. 1 much prior to the date of accident, he cannot be made liable to pay the compensation amount under the law. For the said purpose, reliance has also been placed by him upon the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act and Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and the judgment of our own High Court reported at IV(2017) ACC 568 (DEL).
37. Ld counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently argued that sufficient evidence has already been led during the course of enquiry to prove the factum of sale of offending car by him to respondent no. 1. In this regard, he heavily relied upon the testimony of R2W1 Sh. Girish Kumar Nanda. He contended that respondent no. 2 had done everything which was in his control and he has also placed on record copies of Form No. 29 and 30 regarding sale of said vehicle in favour of respondent no. 1 alongwith Delivery Receipt executed by said respondent. Thus, no liability can be fastened upon him to pay any compensation for the road accident caused by subsequent owner of the said vehicle.
38. I have given my anxious consideration to the respectful submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of evidence available on record and the relevant provisions applicable to the point in issue. I have also gone through the authority relied on behalf of respondent no. 2.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 22 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
39. Before coming to the legal position on the aforesaid aspect, it would be appropriate to discuss the testimony of R2W1. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R2W1/A) that he was the owner of car no. DL6CC6379 till 25.02.11, whereafter, he had sold the same to respondent no. 1 and had handed over delivery of said vehicle to said respondent. He further deposed that requisite documents i.e. Form Nos. 29 & 30 regarding transfer of said vehicle, were also handed over to respondent no. 1, who had executed the delivery receipt. He further deposed that the entire control, supervision and possession of said car was with respondent no. 1 after 25.02.11 and he had given intimation in this regard to the police during investigation of the criminal case and had also handed over copies of relevant documents to the police. He further deposed that he had no knowledge about the accident in question and the respondent no. 1 has admitted the factum of purchase of said car from him before the police as well as in the present case. He has relied upon copy of delivery receipt dated 25.02.11 executed by respondent no. 1 in his favour as Ex. R2W1/1. He has not been crossexamined at all by respondent no. 1. During his crossexamination, he admitted that he had not given any written intimation in the office of Registering Authority regarding sale of said car to respondent no. 1. He never tried to send any such intimation even by post. Although, he claimed to have visited the said office personally but he could not produce any document in this regard. He admitted that he continued to be the registered owner of said car in the records of Transport Authority. He did not lodge any complaint with any Public Authority against respondent Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 23 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 no. 1 for not getting the said vehicle transferred in his name. He denied the suggestion that he never sold the said vehicle to respondent no. 1 or that he was raising false plea in order to escape from his liability to pay the compensation amount in this case.
40. In order to have better appreciation of the respective submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act. Same reads as under: "50. Transfer of ownership.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,
(a) the transferor shall,
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within fortyfive days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in subclause(i) (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained. (I) the receipt obtained under subsection (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 24 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where
(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by, or on behalf of, Government, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to report to the registering authority the fact of transfer within the period specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1), as the case may be, or if the person who is required to make an application under subsection (2) (hereafter in this section referred to as the other person) fails to make such application within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the transferor or the Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 25 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 transferee, or the other person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177 such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under subsection (5):
Provided that action under section 177 shall be taken against the transferor or the transferee or the other person, as the case may be, where he fails to pay the said amount.
(4) Where a person has paid the amount under sub section (3), no action shall be taken against him under section 177.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the transferor or the transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(6) On receipt of a report under subsection (1), or an application under subsection (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority."
41. It is quite clear from the bare perusal of the provision reproduced herein above that sub section (1) thereof casts duty upon transferor of any motor vehicle to give intimation alongwith supporting documents regarding sale of said vehicle to the Registering Authority within 14 days of the date of first transfer. It also casts duty upon transferor to report within 30 days of transfer, the factum of transfer of any such vehicle to the concerned Registering Authority. Sub Section (2) thereof is Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 26 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 admittedly not relevant in this case. According to Sub Section (3) thereof, any default on the part of transferor or transferee to report the factum of transfer to the Registering Authority within the stipulated period, may entail penalty upon them as prescribed therein. Sub Sections (4) and (5) also deal about the imposition of the penalty. Sub Section (6) provides that on receipt of application under Sub Section (2), the Registering Authority may allow transfer of ownership of such vehicle to be entered in the Certificate of Registration and Sub Section (7) provides that after allowing transfer of ownership of vehicle, Registering Authority shall communicate the same to the transferor and also to the original Registering Authority, if it is not original Registering Authority.
42. Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, provides the procedure to be followed at the time of transfer of any motor vehicle by its registered owner to any other person.
43. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The respondent no. 2 namely Sh. Girish Kumar Nanda cannot avoid to pay compensation amount by taking recourse to the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act and / or Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules. It is an admitted position on record that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of offending car as on the date of accident in question. This fact is duly admitted by respondent no. 2 himself during his cross examination while examined as R2W1. The respondent no. 2 has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 50 (1) (a) (i) of M.V Act inasmuch as he failed Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 27 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 to send any written intimation either to Registration Authority or even to the transferee, as provided therein.
44. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the provision contained in Section 2 (30) of M.V Act, which defines the term 'owner' to mean a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and in case of minor, the guardian of such minor and in case where the motor vehicle is subject of Hire Purchase Agreement or Agreement of Lease or Agreement of Hypothecation, the person in whose possession such vehicle is, as per the said agreement.
45. Again, turning back to the facts of the present case. The fact remains that respondent no. 2 continued to be registered owner of the offending car as on the date of accident. Hence, he would still continue to remain liable to third party for death/bodily injury caused to any third party involving use of the said vehicle. He cannot be allowed to escape from his liability merely on this ground.
46. Similar question arose before Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "P.P Mohammed Vs. K. Rajappan & Ors." reported at 2003 ACJ 1595. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the issue as to whether registered owner is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount once, he/she had already sold the offending vehicle to some other person. After discussing the legal position on this Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 28 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 issue, Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para nos. 7 & 8 of the judgment as under: "xxxx
7. Undoubtedly at first blush it appears as if these observations support the case of appellant. However, it has to be seen that the question whether the original owner gets absolved of his liability to a third party was not before the Court. The only question which was being considered by the Court was, as set out in para 3, as follows:
"(3) Whether due to the terms and conditions of the contract, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is not liable?"
8. The above said observation is in the context of this question. All that was being considered in this case was the rights of the original owner visavis those of the transferee. Also the final decision is based on the terms of the contract between the parties. Therefore, they cannot be drawn out of the context. It will accordingly have to be held that the appellant as the person, in whose name registration continues, will remain liable to a third person. However, the person in actual possession would also be liable.
xxxxx"
47. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in its subsequent decision dated 12.01.2011 in the matter titled as " Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Vs. Shakntha & Ors." passed in Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2005.The relevant para nos. 9 to14 of the said judgment read as under: " xxxxx
9. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of the vehicle has to be examined under different provisions of the Act. Section 2(30) of the Act defines "owner" in the following terms:
"2(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 29 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;"
(Emphasis added) xxxxxx"
10. Then, section 50 of the Act lays down the procedure for transfer of ownership. It is a long section and insofar as relevant it is reproduced below: "50. Transfer of ownership.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,
(a) the transferor shall,
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) xxxxxxx
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) xxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxx Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 30 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 (4) xxxxxx (5) xxxxxx (6) On receipt of a report under subsection (1), or an application under subsection (2), the registering authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the transfer of ownership to the transferor and to the original registering authority, if it is not the original registering authority."
11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender Gupta nor the transferee Salig Ram took any step for the change of the name of the owner in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. In view of this omission Jitender Gupta must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale on February 2, 1993.
12. The question of the liability of the recorded owner of a vehicle after its sale to another person was considered by this Court in Dr. T.V. Jose vs. Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision, the Court observed and held as follows: "9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the oral evidence on record. He submitted that the oral evidence clearly showed that the Appellant was not the owner of the car on the date of the accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely because the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. did not mean that the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made partyRespondent No.9 to these Appeals. He pointed out that an Advocate had filed appearance on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then applied for and was permitted to withdraw the appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had been duly served and a public notice had also been issued.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 31 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas had chosen not to appear in these Appeals. He submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy Thomas.
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court was not right in holding that the Appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as the owner. The Appellant could not escape that liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party either before MACT or the High Court. In these Appeals we cannot and will not go into the question of inter se liability between the Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled to do so."
(Emphasis added) xxxxxx"
13. Again, in P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan & Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined the same issue under somewhat similar set of facts as in the present case. In paragraph 4 of the decision, this Court observed and held as follows:
"4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The insurance company has chosen not to file any appeal. The question before this Court is whether by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter to Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from liability to the third person who was injured. This question has been answered by this Court in T.V. Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. wherein it is held that even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person. We are in agreement with the view expressed therein. Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that the appellant stands absolved of his liability to a third person. So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person."
(Emphasis added) Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 32 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018
14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having regard to the provisions of section 2(30) and section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of the decision shall apply with equal force to the facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act. On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Xxxxx"
48. Similar view has been taken by Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.", reported at (2018) 3 SCC as well as in its recent decision in the case of "
Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 11369 of 2018 decided on 14.12.18.
49. In view of the legal position on the point in issue, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited decisions, the reliance placed by respondent no. 2 on the above referred decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, is of no help to him.
50. Applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is hereby held that the respondent no. 2 namely Sh. Girish Kumar Nanda cannot be absolved from his liability to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 1 being principal tortfeasor and respondent no. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle and thus, vicariously Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 33 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 liable for the acts of principal tortfeasor, are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
51. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award compensation of Rs. 13,16,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 09.08.12 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
52. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 26.09.2017. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) (since a sum of Rs. 2,05,856/ has already been spent by injured on his medical treatment) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account no. 024005004010 with The Delhi State CoOperative Bank Limited and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/ Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 34 of 36 MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
53. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimant/petitioner.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
54. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimant was asked as to whether he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. He stated on oath that he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished Form No. 15G on record.
55. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order.
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 35 of 36MACP No. 4986/16; FIR No. 258/12; PS. Bawana DOD:17.12.2018 Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) directed to be released immediately to petitioner in the aforesaid saving bank account mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be 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 award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimant. Copy of this award be sent to both the respondents through SHO, PS. Bawana for their information and necessary compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IV B & Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by VIDYA VIDYA PRAKASH
PRAKASH
Announced in the open Date: 2018.12.18
16:11:22 +0530
Court on 17.12.2018
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Manish Vs. Ramesh & Anr. Page 36 of 36