Delhi District Court
Nazma Shabir vs Mohd.Tayyab on 10 May, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.: 77017/2016
FIR No.331/11
PS Tilak Nagar
Nazma Shabir
W/o Mohd. Sabir (since deceased)
R/o Plot No.D603, JJ Colony,
Shiv Vihar, Hastsal,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohd.Tayyab
S/o Mohd.Hafijul,
r/o Jhuggi No.B42,
Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Samalka, Kapashera,
Delhi
(Driver)
2. Sujeet Kumar
S/o Rajender Singh,
r/o H.No.RJ2013, Rajokari,
Delhi
(Registered Owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
At: A25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi
(Insurer) .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 30.11.2011
Date of conclusion of arguments : 06.05.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 10.05.2019
AWARD
1. This judgmentcumaward shall decide the claim petition which was initially 2 filed by Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased) and subsequently pursued by his wife Nazma Shabir under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "M.V. Act") as amended up to date to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road vehicular accident that took place at about 01:40 am in the intervening night of 28/29.09.2011. An FIR No.331/11 under Sections 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar and charge sheet was filed against Mohd.Tayyab (respondent No.1), driver of car bearing registration No.HR55MT6534 (offending vehicle).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) along with copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and chargesheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition are that at about 01:40 am in the intervening night of 28/29.09.2011, Mohd. Sabbir (now deceased) was going to his house at Tilak Nagar on his rickshaw. When he reached near 20Block, Gurudwara, Tilak Nagar, Kabuli Chowk, suddenly a Bolero car bearing registration No.HRMT6534 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rickshaw. Resultantly, Mohd.Sabbir fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to DDU Hospital for treatment.
4. Subsequently, it transpired that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1/Mohh.Tayyab which was owned by respondent No.2/Sujeet Kumar and insured with respondent No.3/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
5. No Written Statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle and their right to file written statement was struck off vide order dated 16.04.2012 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Tribunal.
6. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, it was claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It was, however, admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide its Policy bearing No.152100 valid from 21.02.2011 to 20.02.2012 including the date of accident.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor vide order dated 3 16.04.2012:
1. Whether the petitioner Sh.Mohd.Sabbir suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 29.09.2011 at about 01:40 hours involving Bulero Car bearing No.HR55MT6534 driven by Mohd.Tayab, owned by Sh.Sujeet Kumar and insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
9. My findings on various issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the petitioner Sh.Mohd.Sabbir suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 29.09.2011 at about 01:40 hours involving Bulero Car bearing No.HR55MT6534 driven by Mohd.Tayab, owned by Sh.Sujeet Kumar and insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd? OPP
10. Since the present claim petition was filed under the provisions of 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner(s) to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
11. In support of his claim, Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased) examined himself as PW1 and Dr.Naresh Chandra, Orthopedics (Specialist), Guru Govind Singh Govt.Hospital as PW2.
12. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), PW1/Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased) explained the mode and manner of the accident as described in para No.3 of this award.
13. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of respondent No.3/ insurance company, PW1/Mohd.Sabbir categorically testified that he was pulling the rickshaw on the left side of the road and the offending vehicle came from behind. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony of PW1/Mohd.Sabbir which could doubt his version.4
14. PW1/Mohd.Sabbir was neither crossexamined by respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle nor by respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle to disprove his version that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/Mohd.Tayyab. Hence, the testimony of PW1/Mohd.Sabbir remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/Mohd.Tayyab. Issue No.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the petitioner/claimant and against the respondents.
16. Finding on Issue No.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
17. Since issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, she is entitled to compensation.
18. In RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER (2011) 1 SCC 343 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability 5
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES (Special Damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines
19. PW1/Mohd.Sabbir in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) deposed that immediately after the accident, he was removed to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for treatment where he was diagnosed with "Compound IIIA fracture shaft femur distal 3rd right fracture supraeondly femur left" . To support his version, he placed on record Discharge Summary of DDU Hospital as Ex.PW1/3, as per which, he remained admitted in DDU Hospital from 29.09.2011 to 02.11.2011. As per Discharge Summary, a plate was inserted during his treatment. To prove his claim, PW1/Mohd.Sabbir placed on record various medical bills amounting to Rs.11,115/ as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) which were not refuted by the insurance company. In view of the circumstances, claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.11,115/ (Rupees Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Fifteen) under this head.
Expenses relating to Conveyance, Food(Special Diet) and Attendant charges
20. It was claimed by PW1/Mohd.Sabbir that he had spent Rs.30,000/ on special diet and Rs.15,000/ on conveyance and attendant, but, no document was placed on record to prove the expenses. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased), a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) each is awarded to the claimant as compensation under this head.
Loss of earning during the period of treatment
21. According to the medical treatment record; period of hospitalization and 6 injuries sustained by Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased), the period of loss of earning during his treatment and recovery is reckoned as 04 months.
22. It was claimed by PW1/Mohd.Sabbir in his evidence that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.13,000/ per month by working as a Cook in Private Sector besides pulling rickshaw as a part timer. However, no document was placed on record by PW1 to prove his income and vocation. Also, no document regarding his educational qualification was placed on record. In the absence of any evidence qua income and education of Mohd.Sabbir (since deceased), he is considered as Unskilled Worker as per Minimum Wages prevailing in Delhi at the time of accident. Accordingly, income of injured Mohd.Sabbir (since deceased) is assessed as Rs.6,422/ per month. Accordingly, loss of income of Mohd.Sabbir (since deceased) during the period of treatment would be Rs.6,422 x 04 = Rs.25,688/. Hence, claimant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,688/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight) under this head.
NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
23. In V. MEPHERSON & ANR. VS. SHIV CHARAN SINGH AND ORS. , reported as 1998 ACJ 601, the injured died during pendency of the claim petition. It was thus, held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that :
"3. So far as the contentions of Mr. Tarun Johri about the claim for damages which was on account of suffering and pain suffered by the deceased, to my mind, it would abate on the death of the injured. But so far as other claims under other heads are concerned those would not come to an end on the death of the objector. The right to sue would survive even on the death of the objector. As a matter of fact, claims on account of the special diet, medicine, conveyance, etc. are such which related to loss of property, therefore, right to sue would not abate on the death of the objector. It would survive to his legal heirs as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Joti Ram v. Chaman Lal, 1984 ACJ 645 (P&H)."
24. Admittedly, the injured Mohd.Sabbir expired on 23.02.2017 and no evidence was led by the claimant/his wife to establish that the death of injured Mohd.Sabbir was caused by the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the aforecited case of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the petitioner/LR of injured Mohd.Sabbir (since deceased) is not entitled to any compensation under this head.
725. The total compensation is computed as under:
SN Heads Amount
1. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines 11,115
2. Conveyance 10,000
3. Food (Special Diet) 10,000
3. Attendant Charges 10,000
4. Loss of earning during the period of treatment 25,688
Total 66,803
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs.66,803/ (rounded off to Rs.67,000/)(Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand). LIABILITY
26. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company vide its Policy bearing No.152100 valid from 21.02.2011 to 20.02.2012 including the date of accident i.e. 29.09.2011. However, respondent No.3/insurance company took a statutory defence that respondent No.1/driver was not having any valid and effective licence to drive a commercial vehicle at the time of accident. It was claimed that respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence for LMV (NT) only.
27. To substantiate its claim, respondent No.3 examined Chitter Singh, LDC/Transport Authority, Janakpuri, Delhi as R3W1 and Niket Anand, Administrative Officer/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W2.
28. R3W2/Niket Anand proved notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as Ex.R3W2/A and copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W2/E.
29. R3W1/Chitter Singh proved DL verification report in respect of DL bearing No.0920060135148 issued in the name of Mohd.Tayab/respondent No.1 as Ex.R3W1/1.
30. It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company that as per driving licence annexed with the DAR, respondent No.1 was authorised to drive a LMV (NT) only and he was not authorised to drive a commercial vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
831. There is no force in the argument of learned Counsel for respondent No.3. In the celebrated judgment of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INS.CO.LTD. reported in 2017 ACJ 2011 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the issue arising in the present case and it was observed as under: "40. In S.Iyyapan, 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC), this court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar, 2000 ACJ 319 (SC); Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC); as well as Prabhu Lal, 2008 ACJ 627 (SC) and has laid down thus:
"(19) In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra maxicab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
This court has rightly held in S. Iyyapan (supra), that it was not necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab as he was authorised to drive a light motor vehicle.
41. In Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 2973 (SC), this court has referred to the decisions in S. Iyyapan, 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) and Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) and has laid down that once the driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. In Kulwant Singh (supra), it has been laid down thus:
"(9) We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), this court referred to the provisions of section 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e., rule 14 and Form 4. It was concluded:
'(16) From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.' (10) In S.Iyyapan, 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' could drive 'light motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could not disown its liability. It was observed:
'(19) In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident 9 took place, was Mahindra maxicab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.' No contrary view has been brought to our notice.
(11) Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy in the present case, entitling the insurance company to recovery rights."
Though, as held above, and for the reasons assigned by us, the conclusion in Kulwant Singh (supra) was correct, however, for the postamended position after 28.03.2001 also the law continues to be the same for LMV class of vehicles."
32. From the bare reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is thus crystal clear that respondent No.1 did not commit any breach and that he was competent to drive commercial vehicle as he was in possession of a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle.
33. Since it is admitted fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3/insurance company, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.3/Insurance company is under statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimant.
RELIEF
34. In view of above findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.67,000/ (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand) as compensation to the claimant. Claimant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 30.11.2011 till its realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
35. Consequently, interest amount be paid to the claimant along with award amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned in succeeding paragraphs. MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT
36. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, 10 Delhi in the name of the petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/ Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
37. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS to the bank account of the MACT SBI Tis Hazari Courts Complex Branch, Delhi and while making the payment through one of the aforementioned modes, Insurance Company shall also furnish particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision as well. Insurance Company is further directed to submit copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank along with receipt qua depositing/transferring of award amount. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to petitioner(s) in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc., if any, in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
38. In accordance with the order dt. 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. VS. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. IN FAO NO.842/2003, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Mr.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager/SBI, has been appointed as Nodal Officer in accordance with the abovesaid order having phone No.02222741336/9414048606 and email id: [email protected]. In case of any assistance or noncompliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by email to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the email.
39. Award amount along with interest be released to the claimant immediately in her savings bank account in a nationalised bank.
40. The claimant has filed her PAN Card during the recording of her statement 11 under Clause 27 of MCTAP. She is directed to submit Form 15G (Form 15H in case of Senior Citizen) to the insurance company in case she is eligible for exemption of deduction of TDS.
41. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of costs.
42. Copy of this Award be also sent to concerned learned M.M. and DLSA.
43. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 03.07.2019.
44. Form IVB and Form V in accordance with order dt. 15.12.2017 in RAJESH TYAGI (SUPRA) are annexed with the award in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed
by HEMANI
HEMANI MALHOTRA
Announced in the open Court MALHOTRA Date: 2019.05.10
on 10th May, 2019 15:58:47 +0530
(Hemani Malhotra)
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 12 FORM IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident 29.09.2011
2. Name of the injured Mohd.Sabbir (now deceased)
3. Age of the injured 49 years
4. Occupation of the injured Unskilled Worker
5. Income of the injured Rs.6,422/ p.m.
6. Nature of Injury Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by DDU Hospital the injured
8. Period of hospitalization 29.09.2011 to 02.11.2011
9. Whether any permanent disability If yes, give details NA
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment 11,115
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 10,000
(iii) Expenditure on special diet 10,000
(iv) Cost of nursing attendant 10,000
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income 25,688
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid
to the injured for the rest of his life
12 NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
13
(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 to disability
(iv) Loss of future income (income x % Earning Capacity X Nil Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.66,803/ (rounded off to Rs.67,000/)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.44,903/
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,11,903/
18. Award amount released Award amount with interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to the claimant(s). Through bank (Clause 29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award (Clause 31) 03.07.2019 Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.05.10 15:58:54 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 14 FORM - V COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 29.09.2011 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 30.11.2011 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company 30.11.2011 (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate 24.11.2011 (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before 30.11.2011 Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 30.11.2011 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 30.11.2011 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed 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 the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 30.11.2011 by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Sh.V.K. Gupta, Adv. (Clause 20) 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of No the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company fairly computed the 15 compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer 16.04.2012 of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) 18 Date of award 10.05.2019 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent Yes of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of Yes residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank 26.02.2018 not to 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 passbook of their savings bank account(s) near 06.05.2019 the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
(Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the H.No.D152, JJ Colony, Shiv ViharII, claimant(s). (Clause 27) Uttam Nagar, Delhi 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the Canara Bank claimant(s) and the address of the bank with A/c No.2455108017517 the IFSC Code. (Clause 27) Vikaspuri Branch IFSC: CNRB0002455 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near their place of residence? Yes (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to ascertain Yes his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) Digitally signed by HEMANI HEMANI MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.05.10 15:59:04 +0530 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 16