Delhi District Court
This Is Claim Petition Filed By vs . on 15 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, POMACT (NE),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. : 54/19
IN THE MATTER OF :
Satish Kumar Sisodiya
S/o Sh. Ram Babu Singh
R/o House no. 422, Gali no. 7,
Moonga Nagar, Karawal Nagar, North East Delhi 110094
Vs.
1. Mohit Tomar
R/o House no. 77, Habibpur Suthyana
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar
.........Driver
2. Jay Chand Singh
S/o Sh. Rampal
R/o House no. 77, Habibpur Suthyana
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar
............Owner
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1st Floor, Plot no. 6, Metro Pillar no. 81
Pusa Road, New Delhi
........Insurer
Date of Institution of Petition : 25.10.2019
MACT No. : 54/19 1/22
Date of Arguments : 30.10.2019 & 15.11.2019
Date of Award : 15.11.2019
AWARD
1. This is claim petition filed by petitioner/claimant with regard to the
accident caused on 27.07.2018 at about 9.30 p.m. near Surajpur Gol
Chakkar, P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar, by offending vehicle
bearing registration no. UP16B2141.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. In terms of the contents of petition, on 27.07.2018 at about 9.30 p.m, petitioner/injured was going to his house from Surajpur, Noida by his motorcycle which was being driven by him at normal speed and on correct side of the road. When the motorcycle reached near Surajpur Gol Chakkar, P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, a truck bearing registration no. UP16BT2141, which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from back side and hit the injured's motorcycle with great force, as a result of which, injured/petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries over his body.
3. FIR bearing no. 729/2018, u/s 279/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S. Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no.2 which was insured with respondent no.3. Injured was shifted to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida, where his MLC was prepared and thereafter he was shifted to Khushi hospital at Agra.
MACT No. : 54/19 2/224. Written statement was not filed by respondents no.1 & 2 and they were proceeded exparte.
5. In written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.3, it was submitted that no such accident was caused by the driver of alleged offending vehicle. Neither the name of eye witness nor name of driver of offending vehicle was mentioned in the FIR and petitioner/claimant with malafide intention has filed the present claim petition. It was further submitted that the accident, if any, was caused due to the sole negligence of driver of motorcycle who himself was driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and thus respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. From the pleading of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.02.2019 : I) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. UP16BT2141 by respondent no.1 at Near Surajpur Gol Chakkar, P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. on 27.07.2018 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Surajpur, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.?
OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT No. : 54/19 3/223) Relief.
7. In order to establish his claim, petitioner examined himself as PW1, Sh. Parmanand, Medical Record Keeper from Kailash Hospital was examined as PW2, Dr. Samarth Mittal was examined as PW3, PW4 is Sh. Arvind Singh from Romsons International, PW5 is Sh. Rahul Singh from HDFC Bank, PW6 is Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Deputy Manager from HDFC Bank and PW7 is Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal from Romsons International.
8. On behalf of Respondent no.3, Sh. Abhishek Nigam, Assistant Manager from Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company was examined as R3W1.
9. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form VIB. On behalf of petitioners, Form VIB has been filed on record, whereas Insurance Company has not submitted the same on record till date. Having heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, Issue wise findings are as under : ISSUE NO. 1
10. Injured/petitioner was examined as PW1 in the matter who reiterated the contents of the petition in his affidavit of evidence regarding the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. UP 16BT2141 on the date of accident.
MACT No. : 54/19 4/2211. Injured was working with M/s Romsons International at Noida and on the date of accident, he was coming from Surajpur to his residence on his motorcycle bearing no. UP80BR6760, Hero Splendour. As deposed, as soon as he reached at Surajpur Gol Chakkar, he was hit by vehicle no. UP 16BT2141 from behind. Due to impact, he fell down on his right side. He was conscious and could identify the truck driver. The driver of the truck was stopped at the spot. He did not remember whether the truck was empty or loaded. PW1 himself had informed the police regarding the accident and police came after about 510 minutes. It was deposed by PW1 that no other vehicle was plying on road at the time of accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident or that accident was caused due to his negligence.
12. Based upon the complaint of petitioner, FIR bearing no. 729/2018, u/s 279/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S. Surajpur raising the accusing finger against the respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. PW1 witness stood through his testimony in cross examination regarding the accident having been caused by offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. PW1 was the injured as well as the eye witness to the incident. Driver of the offending vehicle did not prefer to examine himself nor the insurance company brought him into the witness box to controvert the testimony of PW1 with regard to imputation against driver of the offending vehicle being rash and negligent, calling for the forming of adverse opinion on that aspect. Reliance is placed upon Cholamandalam MACT No. : 54/19 5/22 M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, wherein it was observed that " an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Claimant had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case".
13. Further in Bimla Devi and Ors. V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that : " the Tribunal has to borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
14. Reliance is further placed upon Kaushnumma Begum and others V/s New Indiam Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was observed that " the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and it was held that, mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and MACT No. : 54/19 6/22 negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one".
15. Having discussed as above, claimant /petitioner having been able to prove on the basis of preponderence of probabilities with regard to him having suffered injuries due to the accident having taken place because of the negligence on the part of driver i.e. respondent no.1 herein. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 343 titled Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Anr. laid down the following general principles relating to compensation in injury cases:
4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the MACT No. : 54/19 7/22 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.
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages ( Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earning ( and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
MACT No. : 54/19 8/22
Nonpecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities ( and/ or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life ( shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ( and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (I) and under item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non pecuniary damages items
(iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature MACT No. : 54/19 9/22 of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
17. PW1 has relied upon his medical treatment records and medical bills Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 respectively. In terms of MLC of injured prepared at Kailash Hospital, he had suffered deformity over his right thigh with multiple punctured wound over right leg. On 27.07.2018, he was admitted in Kailash Hospital and was discharged on 3.8.2018, followed by his further treatment from Khushi Hospital, Agra wherein also he remained hospitalized from 19.11.2018 to 10.12.2018.
18. In terms of Medical treatment record and bills which were brought on record Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 (Colly), petitioner had spent total amount of Rs. 4,75,163/ towards his medical treatment. There being no evidence in rebuttal to create any doubt on the genuinenity of said bills, the said amount is considered on record for grant of compensation.
19. It is also brought on record that PW1 has not received any reimbursement against medical bills from his employer. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company submitted that the petitioner was covered under ESI Scheme, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation. As deposed by PW4, ESIC was applicable for their firm but as the petitioner was drawing high salary, therefore, he was not covered under ESIC Scheme. PW7 also confirmed regarding the applicability of MACT No. : 54/19 10/22 ESIC Scheme and further submitted that if any employee was getting salary above Rs. 21000/, he was out of ESIC limit. Petitioner was drawing salary of more than Rs. 47000/, therefore, was not covered under ESIC Scheme, hence it is the insurance company which becomes liable to make the payment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,75,163/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
20. Injured had sustained severe injuries due to impact of the accident and remained hospitalized for considerable period of time. He was working as Supervisor in Romsons International and in terms of salary slip Ex. PW7/2, was earning Rs. 47,970/ as on July 2018. However, due to the accident, PW1 was not able to attend his duties and as deposed by PW7, after 27.7.2018, he could not join his services as he suffered permanent disability. As was deposed by PW7, when this fact regarding permanent disability of petitioner was informed to the company, then company terminated his services w.e.f. 15.7.2019, though as stated by PW7, petitioner was paid salary upto the month of August and September 2018 on account of his accumulated earned leaves.
21. Petitioner sustained 73% physical disability in relation to right lower limb, which fact is duly established in view of ocular testimony of PW3 and Disability Certificate Ex. PW3/1 dated 19.02.2019. As was deposed by PW 3, the disability is pertaining to a particular limb which MACT No. : 54/19 11/22 cannot be cured with any other treatment. With this disability, patient has to walk with the help of walker, he cannot sit cross legged or squat.
22. Petitioner was working as Production Supervisor in Private Firm and had to perform his duties on production shop floor in standing position throughout the day as deposed by PW7. With the disability of 73%, these duties could not have been performed and therefore, his services were terminated by employer Romsons International vide termination letter dated 15.7.2019.
23. As was noted in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007, "
where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. What requires to be assessed by the tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured ; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future MACT No. : 54/19 12/22 loss of earnings ( by applying the standard multiplies method used to determine the loss of dependency)".
24. As already discussed above, services of petitioner were terminated by his employer w.e.f. 15.7.2019 vide termination letter Ex. PW7/1. He is shown to have sustained permanent disability of 73% disability in relation to his right lower limb, which plays pivotal role in bodily functions, therefore, it would be difficult for him to perform his day to day activities but at the same time, there is possibility for the petitioner to join the job and at least some desk job where he has not to stand. The job being done by petitioner was the supervisory job and was not the technical post offered to petitioner based upon the educational qualifications or experience of the petitioner. Any other job where the petitioner is not required to stand throughout the day can very well be performed by the petitioner. It may also be noted that the services of the petitioner were not terminated by the employer of its own. Only when he was informed to join the duties that he himself apprised the employer with regard to his incapability to stand alongwith the disability certificate pursuant to which, his services were terminated. Petitioner did not offer or seek from his employer any other duties which could be performed in sitting position. He was Production Supervisor and any other supervisory duties might have been offered to him, had the petitioner showed such intentions to the employer.
25. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for insurance company that the MACT No. : 54/19 13/22 salary of petitioner mentioned by PW7 was on much higher side . Salary slip of the petitioner consists of payment of basic salary at Rs. 19000/ with other different allowances including performance allowance, incentive etc. which were the performance based allowances . The salary certificate Ex. PW7/2 depicts the gross salary with no mention of compulsory or other deductions and the net salary actually being received by the petitioner. Extract from the V endor Ledger from the employer of petitioner i.e. Romsons International was brought on record as Ex. PW7/3 with regard to the deduction against advance paid to petitioner but no extract from accounts was placed on record with regard to actual salary being paid to the petitioner. However bank statement of petitioner was brought on record for the period 1.4.2017 to. 27.7.2018. For month of April 2017, there are two entries against the salary from Romsons International in sum of Rs. 26670 and Rs. 9000/. For the month of May 2017, again there are two entries against salary in sum of Rs. 28690 and Rs. 9000/. It was submitted by PW7 that the monthly salary was being transferred in the account of petitioner after deduction of PF amount of Rs. 1800/ and advance amount, if any and allowance was separately being transferred to account of petitioner. Similar amounts are reflected for the subsequent months, thereby it is MACT No. : 54/19 14/22 depicted from the bank statement of petitioner that he was getting carry home salary of Rs. 36000 / to Rs. 40000/ per month which was after deduction towards advance and against PF, commensurate to the salary reflected in salary statement.
26. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including .the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and his nature of work at the time of accident, his functional disability is taken as 40 %.
27. In terms of copy of Aadhar Card and Pan Card placed on record, the date of birth of petitioner was 01.01.1977, thereby he was about 41 years and 6 months of age as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 in view of the 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. The income of petitioner was Rs. 47970/ in terms of salary slip of petitioner brought on record. As the petitioner was aged 41 years at the time of accident and was working in private firm on fixed salary, he is entitled for 25% addition towards future prospects. Therefore, his annual income alongwith future prospects is taken as {40000+ 10,000 (25%)} = Rs. 50,000/. Thus, the loss of future income would be Rs. ( 50,000 x 40/100 x 12 x 14)= Rs. 33,60,000/. Sum of Rs. 33,60,000/ is accordingly awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
MACT No. : 54/19 15/22LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
28. Petitioner/claimant has suffered permanent disability affecting his life and loss to the amenities as a consequence of accident. There is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries and also underwent surgery for the same. He remained admitted in hospital for about one month and thereafter also got treatment for substantial time. Thus, he is not able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ is awarded towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
29. 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 MACT No. : 54/19 16/22 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".
30. Injured had sustained injuries due to which he had 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, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ is awarded towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET AND NURSING/ATTENDANT
31. In his evidence by way of affidavit, injured deposed that he had spent considerable amount on his treatment etc. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had met with a serious accident and suffered 73% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. He remained admitted in hospital for considerable period of time and also underwent surgery for his leg/thigh. Thus, he must have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and must 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 period of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, sum of Rs. 25,000/ is MACT No. : 54/19 17/22 awarded for conveyance charges, sum of Rs. 25,000/ is awarded for special diet and sum of Rs. 25,000/ is awarded to the petitioner as cost of attendant/nursing considering the requirement of petitioner for the attendant due to the injury suffered by him.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,75,163/
2. Loss of income Rs. 33,60,000/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 150,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,50,000/ enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance and special diet Rs. 75,000/ and Attendant/ Nursing Total Rs 42,10,163/ Rounded off to Rs 42,10,200/
32. With regard to the consideration as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount, respondent no.3 is the insurance company which admittedly had issued insurance policy of offending vehicle. The copy of driving license of the driver of offending vehicle is not on record and it was deposed by R3W1 who was official from Insurance Company that they had sent notice U/o 12 Rule 8 r/w section 151 CPC and u/s 134 of MV Act to driver and owner of the vehicle to produce a copy of MACT No. : 54/19 18/22 valid and effective driving license of driver and copy of RC, fitness, Route Permit and Route Permit authorization on 3.05.2016 but the owner/driver failed to produce the same on record and to supply copy of the same to Insurance Company . The copy of said notice and postal receipts were exhibited as Ex. R3W1/1 to 3. On the strength of above, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for insurance company that the driver/owner of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged incident, therefore, there was violation of ' Driver Clause Of Insurance Policy' . Therefore, on account of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, breach of Contract and Provisions of section 149 (2) (A) (ii) of Motor Vehicle Act, insurance company is not liable either to indemnity any loss to insured or to pay compensation to the claimants.
33. As already noted above, respondent no. 1/driver himself did not enter into witness box during the course of enquiry and also failed to produce any valid DL in his favour as on the date of accident in question and similarly R2 failed to bring on record the valid permit as on the date of accident. Rather both R1 and R2 did not appear before the court despite service, hence were proceeded exparte. On the other hand, Insurance company by examination of witnesses concerned from the authorities has been able to prove that there has been fundamental breach in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. respondent no. 2 as well as on the part of driver for want of showing the valid driving license. Thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery MACT No. : 54/19 19/22 rights against the said respondents no.1 & 2. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
34. In view of findings on issues no. 1 & 2, award is passed in favour of petitioner and against respondents, payable by respondent no.3 with recovery rights against respondents no. 1 & 2, for sum of Rs. 42,10,200/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petition till realization.
35. Out of total award amount, sum of Rs. 35 lacs be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 40,000/ for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. Remaining amount is directed to be released to the petitioner through his Saving Bank Account brought on record.
36. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings bank account(s) and not 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).
MACT No. : 54/19 20/22(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 amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not 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 disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
37. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the MACT No. : 54/19 21/22 share amount directed to be released to aforesaid petitioner in his saving bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. She/He is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. FormV and Form IVA, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of judgment. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on this 15th day of November, 2019 ( SAVITA RAO) PO MACT, NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MACT No. : 54/19 22/22