Delhi District Court
Manhoman Singh vs Budh Sain Patel on 10 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
DAR No.: 266/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 3312/2016
Himanshu Adhikari
S/o Sh. Madhav Singh
R/o B-89, Gali No. 2,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
DAR No.: 267/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 3313/2016
Manhoman Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagwat Singh
R/o C-146B, Gali No. 11,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Budh Sain Patel
S/o. Sh. Ramdin Patel
R/o G-60, Vill. Ghazipur,
Delhi
..... Driver
2. Shankar Rai
S/o Sh. Raj Mangal Rai
R/o H. No. 1, Gali No. 7,
East Laxmi Nagar Market,
Madhu Vihar, Delhi-110092
..... Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
28, Scope Minar, Core-2, 11th Floor,
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092
..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of institution : 01.03.2016
Reserved for orders : 08.11.2017
Date of Award : 10.01.2018
JUDGMENT
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 1 of 19 Introduction:
1. On 10.02.2016 at 8.00 p.m., Himanshu Adhikari was riding motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 7S BG 9698 (the motorcycle) with pillion rider Manmohan Singh in front of EDMC parking gate, near Competent Automobiles, Ghazipur, Delhi when he came to be involved in a motor vehicular accident, allegedly, due to rash and negligent driving of trailer truck bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 (the truck).
Himanshu Adhikari suffered crush injury in his right upper limb and eventually, his right upper limb above elbow was amputated. Manmohan Singh suffered simple injury. Himanshu Adhikari and Manmohan Singh (collectively, the petitioners) instituted accident claim cases in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) submitted by the local police in the context of FIR No. 92/16 under section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Ghazipur impleading, inter alia, the driver, the registered owner and insurer as party respondents.
2. The respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied that he had caused any accident. He claimed false implication by the police in collusion with the petitioners. He denied liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. He stated that he was having a valid driving license to drive the truck.
3. The respondent No. 2, in his written statement, stated that the truck owned by him had not caused any accident. He claimed false implication. He stated that the truck was duly insured at the relevant time. He stated that the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving license to drive the truck. He denied liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 2 of 19
4. The respondent No. 3 / insurer, in its written statement, conceded that the truck was insured with it for the period in question. It pleaded that the truck was being used on the public road without permit and fitness certificate. It pleaded that the accident was caused on account of negligence of Himanshu Adhikari. It stated that the truck was in the process of taking turn towards left side into the parking gate of EDMC parking when Himanshu Adhikari tried to overtake the truck from left side.
Issues (DAR No. 266/16):
5. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the claimant has suffered injuries in road side accident on 10.02.2016 involving vehicle i.e. Trailer Truck bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(ii) To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?
(iii) Whether offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 had valid fitness for being run on public road on the date of the accident? OPR2
(iv) If not, whether the use of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 on public road without fitness is a breach of condition of insurance policy? OPR3
(v) If so, whether the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Co. will be entitled to have recovery rights against R-1 / driver and R-2 / owner? OPR3
(vi) Relief.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 3 of 19 Issues (DAR No. 267/16):
6. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether Mr. Manmohan Singh suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 10.02.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. in front of EDMC Parking Gate, near Competent Automobiles, Ghazipur, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Ghazipur due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 (Trailer Truck) by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period?
(OPP)
(iv) Whether offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 had valid fitness for being run on public road on the date of the accident?
OPR2
(v) If not, whether the use of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38 N 1938 on public road without fitness is a breach of condition of insurance policy?
OPR3
(vi) If so, whether the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Co. will be entitled to have recovery rights against R-1 / driver and R-2 / owner? OPR3
(vii) Relief.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 4 of 19 Evidence (DAR No. 266/16):
7. Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1) filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He deposed the sequence of events leading to the accident. He relied on voter I-card Ex.PW1/A, ration card Ex.PW1/B, discharge summary Ex.PW1/C, treatment record Ex.PW1/D (colly, 54 pages), medical bills of Rs. 3,10,677/- Ex.PW1/E (colly, 140 pages), Detailed Accident Report (DAR) Ex.PW1/F (colly, 56 pages) and employment cum salary certificate Ex.PW1/G.
8. PW-2 Anshul Senger, Prosthetist and Orthotist, Ottobock Health Care, India Pvt. Ltd. proved authority letter Ex.PW2/A and quotation for artificial limb in the sum of Rs. 3,89,000/- Ex.PW2/B.
9. PW-3 Sharad Mall, Accounts Manager, M/s J.S.B. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., Vaishali, Ghaziabad proved authority letter Ex.PW3/A, Register of Payment of Wages for the month of February, 2016 Ex.PW3/B and termination letter Ex.PW3/C.
10. PW-4 Dr. Harish Kumar, M.S., Orthopedics, GTB Hospital proved the disability certificate Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW-5 Deepshikha Prosthetist and Orthotist, Ottobock Health Care, India Pvt. Ltd. proved authority letter Ex.PX and quotation for artificial limb in the sum of Rs. 3,89,000/- Ex.PW5/A.
12. R1W1 Budh Sain Patel filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. He relied on copy of driving license Ex.R1W1/1.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 5 of 19
13. R2W1 Shankar Rai filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. He relied on registration certificate Ex.PW1/F, fitness Ex.R2W1/1 and insurance policy Ex.PW1/F. Evidence (DAR No. 267/16):
14. PW-1 Manmohan Singh filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He relied on voter I-card Ex.PW1/A, copy of medical bill of Rs. 700/- Ex.PW1/B, Detailed Accident Report (DAR) Ex.PW1/C (colly).
Final arguments:
15. I have heard Sh. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. M.S. Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2, and Sh. Rajesh Goel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / insurer and examined the evidence, oral and documentary. Issue No. 1 (Suit No. 266/16 & 267/16):
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have proved in their evidence that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.
1. He submitted that the respondent No. 1 was taking left turn without indicators and sign. He submitted that the respondent No. 1 was not assisted by any helper. He submitted that the respondent No. 1 had taken left turn suddenly without observing any caution and resultantly, the petitioners suffered injuries.
17. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 / insurer submitted that Himanshu Adhikari was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and he tried to overtake the truck while it was in the process of taking left turn to EDMC Parking.
He referred site plan, mechanical inspection reports and cross- examination of Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1).
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 6 of 19
18. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the petitioners are under legal obligation to prove rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the evidence is tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not the proof beyond reasonable doubt as applicable to criminal cases.
19. In order to discharge the burden of proof, Himanshu Adhikari appeared as PW-1 in Suit No. 266/16. He deposed, on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the sequence of events leading to the accident. In his evidence, he deposed that on 10.02.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., he was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 7S BG 9698 with pillion rider Manmohan Singh from Bhovapur side towards EDM Mall. He deposed that Trailer Truck bearing registration No. HR-38 N- 1938 was moving ahead swiftly steered to left side towards EDM parking gate without giving any indication and for that reason, the motorcycle came under the truck and he suffered injuries on his right hand and Manmohan also suffered injuries.
20. At this stage, it would be relevant to state that R1W1 Budh Sain Patel / driver of the truck has not deposed his version of the accident. He denied the accident and involvement of the truck. There is no evidence to prove the contrary.
21. Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1), in his cross-examination, stated that the road was wide enough to accommodate two vehicles for moving in one direction. He stated that the vehicles of Competent Motors were parked on the main road. He stated that the traffic move slowly as the road is not wide enough.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 7 of 19
22. Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1), in his cross-examination, stated that the container was long enough that three cars could be parked alongwith its side. He stated that a container of this size needs lot of space to take a turn and it cannot turn, if it is in speed. He stated that the container was taking left turn when it hit him. He stated that he had taken a right turn when he saw the container was already turning inside the parking. He stated that there was no indicator or signal for taking turn to the parking. He stated that the distance between the turn from where he had taken right turn and the place of the accident was 10 feet only.
23. It is therefor, proved that the respondent No. 1 was taking left turn to EDMC parking without giving any indicator or signal. The respondent No. 1 has not deposed that he was assisted by any helper while taking left turn to EDMC parking. Taking turn on any side on a moving road without giving any indicator or signal is an evidence of rash and negligent driving. The respondent No. 1 was not assisted by any helper so as to put him to caution while taking left turn is also an evidence of rash and negligent driving.
24. However, there is contributory negligence on the part of Himanshu Adhikari in the accident. It has come in his evidence that he had seen the truck taking turn towards the parking when he had taking right turn from Bhovapur side. The distance between the point where Himanshu Adhikari had seen the truck taking left turn to EDMC parking gate was 10 feet. The petitioner despite noticing that the truck was taking left turn driven the motorcycle on the left side of the truck.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 8 of 19
25. From the site plan of the place of the accident, it is evident that the point where the accident had taken place was left lane of the road just opposite to EDMC parking gate. Mechanical Inspection Report (MIR) of the truck would show that the accident was caused due to collision of the left side of the truck with the motorcycle. From seizure memo, it is evident that the truck was a Trailer having 10 tyres and 20 foot in length with a container. It is not possible for such a heavy vehicle carrying a container to take turn in high-speed.
26. The petitioner was driving his motorcycle on the left side of the container despite the fact that the container was taking left turn towards EDMC parking gate and thus, he contributed to the accident.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, contributory negligence of the petitioner is assessed to be 25%.
28. According to MLC, Himanshu Adhikari was admitted on 10.02.2016 at 8.40 p.m. in Meenakshi Hospital by Manmohan Singh as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). He had crush injuries on his right upper limb. His right limb above elbow was amputated. Manmohan Singh (PW-1) suffered simple injury as mentioned in his MLC prepared by Meenakshi Hospital, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, U.P.
29. It is therefore, proved that the accident in question took place due to contributory negligence to the extent of 75:25 of the respondent No. 1 in driving the truck and Himanshu Adhikari in driving the motorcycle.
30. Issue No. 1 is decided, accordingly, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 9 of 19 Issue No. 2 (DAR No. 266/16 & 267/16):
31. Himanshu Adhikari suffered crush injury right upper limb and his right limb above elbow was amputated. He was assessed to have suffered disability to the extent of 84% in relation to right upper limb. Manmohan Singh suffered simple injury in the accident. Therefore, Himanshu Adhikari and Manmohan Singh are entitled to seek compensation for the injuries suffered by them.
DAR No. 266/16:
Pain and suffering:
32. Himanshu Adhikari suffered crush injury right upper limb. His right limb above elbow was amputated on 11.02.2016. He received treatment as an indoor patient in MAX Hospital, Patparganj from 11.02.2016 to 15.02.2016. His disability was assessed to be 84% in relation to right upper limb by Medical Board, GTB Hospital vide disability certificate Ex.PW4/A. In view the nature of injury and consequent disablement, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. (See: Rajbir Singh versus Neeru & Ors., MAC APP. 71/2011 decided on 09.10.2017) Medical expenses:
33. Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1) proved discharge summary Ex.PW1/C and medical bills Ex.PW1/E for an amount of Rs. 3,10,677/-. Himanshu Adhikari is entitled to medical expenses incurred by him towards treatment.
34. Accordingly, Himanshu Adhikari is awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- (rounded of) towards medical expenses.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 10 of 19 Artificial limb:
35. Himanshu Adhikari suffered amputation above elbow right upper limb. He has examined PW-2 Anshul Senger and PW-5 Deepshikha, Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. They proved charges for fitment of artificial limb to the extent of Rs. 3,89,000/-. PW-5 Deepshikha stated that an amount of Rs. 15,000 to 16,000/- is required for yearly maintenance of artificial limb.
36. Himanshu Adhikari proved placed his academic certificates on the file of the Tribunal. His date of birth is 06.11.1985. He is about 32 years old as on date. He would be requiring, at least, two replacements. (See: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ishlamuddin & Ors, MAC APP. 573/2011 decided on 25.10.2017)
37. The interest accrued upon the amount awarded for one of the artificial limbs would set off the inflation or rise in rate of installation of artificial limb.
38. The interest accrued upon the amount awarded for two of the artificial limbs would be utilized for yearly maintenance as well as for meeting the increased in rate of artificial limbs.
39. Accordingly, Himanshu Adhikari is awarded Rs. 11,67,000/- towards artificial limb and two replacements. Loss of future income:
40. Himanshu Adhikari stated that he was employed as Manager (Documentation) with J.S.B. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. at the salary of Rs. 23,500/-. He stated that after the accident, he lost his job.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 11 of 19
41. Himanshu Adhikari has examined PW-3 Sharad Mall, Accounts (Manager), J.S.B. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., Vaishali, Ghaziabad to prove his employment and income. PW-3 Sharad Mall proved salary certificate Ex.PW1/G, Register of Payment of Wages for the month of February, 2016 Ex.PW3/B and termination letter Ex.PW3/C. He stated that the petitioner was employed as Manager (Head Office) in the company since 2006 and drawing salary of Rs. 23,500/-. Perusal of the Register of Payment of Wages would show that the petitioner was drawing an amount of Rs 23,500/- including Rs. 18,500/- towards Basic, Rs. 2,000/- towards HRA, Rs. 2,500/- towards conveyance and Rs. 500/- towards other charges. The head 'other charges' has not been explained by the petitioner or PW-3 Sharad Mall. Therefore, monthly salary of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs. 23,000/-.
42. PW-3 Sharad Mall proved that the company terminated the services of Himanshu Adhikari vide termination letter Ex.PW3/C. He deposed that the petitioner had become incapable to perform his duties on account of amputation suffered by him. The respondents have not led any evidence to prove that he is employed and presently earning any amount.
43. Himanshu Adhikari, according to academic certificates, was borne on 06.11.1985. He was 30 years and 3 months old. Nearest age bracket would be the age group between 26 to 30. Therefore, multiplier of 17 as applicable to age group between 26 to 30 years would apply. (See: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rekha Vashisht & Ors, MAC APP. 636/2009 decided on 18.02.2016).
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 12 of 19
44. PW-4 Dr. Harish Kumar, M.S. (Orthopedics), GTB Hospital proved disability certificate Ex.PW4/A. Himanshu Adhikari has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 84% in relation to right upper limb. His right upper limb above elbow was amputated. His disability is assessed to be 70% as falling in Sl. No. 3 of injuries in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. (See: Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Versus Chander Shekhar, MAC APP. 388/2008 decided on 28.07.2017)
45. Himanshu Adhikari had a permanent job. He was below the age of 40 years. In view of dispensation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, there shall be 50% addition of income towards future prospects.
46. Therefore, loss of future income of the petitioner is computed as (23,000 x 70 / 100 x 150 / 100 x 12 x 17) = Rs. 49,26,600/- (rounded of) Rs. 50,00,000/-. Attendant charges:
47. Himanshu Adhikari (PW-1), in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, stated that he has engaged a full time maid to do the house- hold work as he requires assistance of his wife for performing daily activities of life. However, he has not led any evidence on this aspect.
48. In view of the nature of the injury, treatment record and consequent, disablement, he is awarded attendant charges for six months on the basis of half of prevalent minimum wages of unskilled worker.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 13 of 19
49. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. (9,178 / 2 x 6) = 27,534/- (rounded off) Rs. 28,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges for six months.
Special diet and conveyance:
50. Himanshu Adhikari has not led any evidence that he was prescribed any special diet. He has not led any evidence that he engaged any conveyance or incurred any expenses thereupon. However, in view of nature of injury and the period of treatment, he is awarded Rs. 25,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance.
Loss of amenities and disfigurement:
51. Himanshu Adhikari suffered amputation above elbow right upper limb. Accordingly, he is awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- each towards loss of amenities and disfigurement.
52. Head-wise computation is as under:
Sl. No. Headwise compensation Amount (in Rs.)
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs. 3,25,000/
3. Artificial limb Rs. 11,67,000/
4. Loss of future income Rs. 50,00,000/
5. Attendant charges Rs. 28,000/
6. Special diet and conveyance Rs. 50,000/
7. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/
8. Compensation for disfigurement Rs. 1,50,000/ Total Rs. 70,20,000/
53. After discounting 25% of the award amount towards contributory negligence, Himanshu Adhikari will be entitled to Rs. 52,65,000/-.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 14 of 19 DAR No. 267/16:
54. Manmohan Singh appeared as PW-1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
55. Manmohan Singh suffered simple injury. He did not require hospitalization. He was discharged soon after primary treatment. He incurred expenses in the sum of Rs. 700/- vide medical bill Ex.PW1/B. He claimed that he was working as Documentation, In-charge with J.S.B. Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. He has not led any evidence to prove his employment and income. He stated that he had taken leave for 8 to 10 days due to injuries suffered by him. He has not led any evidence on this aspect. He has neither stated nor led any evidence that he was prescribed any special diet or availed conveyance.
56. In view of the nature of the injury, Manmohan Singh is awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the injury suffered and medical expenses incurred.
Liability:
57. The respondent No. 3 / insurer pleaded that the truck had no fitness certificate. R2W1 Shankar Rai, owner of the truck placed fitness certificate Ex.R2W1/1. The truck had valid fitness certificate for the period from 05.01.2016 to 30.04.2016. Investigating Officer verified the fitness certificate. In his report, he stated that fitness certificate was valid for the period from 05.01.2016 to 04.01.2017. It has come in the evidence of R2W1 Shankar Rai that the certificate was valid for the period from 05.01.2016 to 31.04.2016 and the date 04.01.2017 as the date of the expiry is wrongly mentioned.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 15 of 19
58. Be that as it may, the truck has valid fitness certificate on the date of the accident. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has not led any evidence to prove the contrary. There was no breach of any term and condition of insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 / insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation.
AWARD DAR No. 266/16:
59. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 / insurer shall pay Rs. 46,57,000/- (after adjusting interim award of Rs. 25,000/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR (01.03.2016) till the date of award within one month. Otherwise, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
60. The respondent No. 3 / insurer shall deposit an amount of Rs. 5,83,500/- towards the cost of two replacements of artificial limb within one month and otherwise, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. Mode of disbursal:
61. The petitioner was examined under Clause 26 MCTAP.
62. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), Manager, Corporation Bank, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner / Himanshu Adhikari and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass-book of the petitioner / Himanshu Adhikari to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 16 of 19
63. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the pass-book. The petitioner is directed to produce the original pass-book with the necessary endorsement, aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal.
64. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), an amount of Rs. 57,000/- out of Rs. 46,57,000/-, will be released into the savings bank account of the petitioner / Himanshu Adhikari and balance amount of Rs. 46,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest will be secured in the following manner:
Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 4,00,000/ 6 months
2. Rs. 4,00,000/ 1 year
3. Rs. 4,00,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 4,00,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 4,00,000/ 30 months
6. Rs. 4,00,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 4,00,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 4,00,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 4,00,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 4,00,000/ alongwith accrued interest 60 months
65. Fitment charges will be released directly to Ottobock from the balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- so as to enable the petitioner to have artificial limb installed and balance amount will be released to the petitioner to meet his house-hold expenses till the first release of the FDR in the sixth months. This amount be kept in the form of FDR for one year with provision of auto-renewal and right to withdraw periodic interest.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 17 of 19
66. Amount of Rs. 5,83,500/- awarded towards cost of two replacements of artificial limb will be secured in the form of FDR for seven years with the right to the petitioner / Himanshu Adhikari to draw the periodic interest. He may seek release of amount for fitment of artificial limb at appropriate time.
67. Manager, UCO Bank, KKD Courts, Delhi shall retain original FDRs. He shall provide the statement containing FDR numbers, amount, date of maturity and the maturity amount to the petitioner / Himanshu Adhikari. He shall not encash any of the FDRs before their maturity date without permission of the Tribunal.
AWARD DAR No. 267/16:
68. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 / insurer shall pay Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR (01.03.2016) till the date of award within one month. Otherwise, the petitioner / Manmohan Singh shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
69. Copy of Award be given to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 / insurer for compliance.
70. Copy of award be given to the parties.
71. Copy of order be sent to Ld. MM.
72. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma Dated: 10th January, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 18 of 19 DAR No. 266/16 10.01.2018 Present : Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate with the petitioner.
Sh. M. Sultan Siddiqui, Advocate for R1 and R2. Sh. Rajesh Goel, Advocate for R3 / Insurance Co.
It is 4.45 p.m. Vide separate judgment, award is passed. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr., MAC APP. 422/2009, Manager, Corporation Bank, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner Himanshu Adhikari and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the passbook. However, the concerned bank shall permit the petitioner to withdraw the cash from his account. The petitioner is directed to produce the original passbook with the necessary endorsement as well as aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal. To come up for compliance on 08.02.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/10.01.2018.
DAR No.: 266/2016 Himanshu Adhikari vs Budh Sain Patel & Ors. 19 of 19