Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Singh vs Sh. Kuldeep Kumar (Driver-Cum-Owner) on 1 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH: PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: WEST-01: TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 55/2019
CNR No.DLWT01-000788-2019
Amarjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o House No. D-50 Shubham Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
......Petitioner
vs
1. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Ranji Lal
R/o House No. F-187/27, Laxmi Park,
Nangloi, Delhi
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insured)
1-107A, 1st Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.02.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 18.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 01.08.2022
A W A RD:
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 06.11.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First FAR is not filed in the present Accident Report (FAR) case
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Form-II not filed in the present victim(s) case
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Form-III not filed in the Driver present case MACT No. 55/2019 Digitally signed by PRITAM Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. PRITAM SINGH Page No. 1 of 30 SINGH Date:
2022.08.01 16:16:53 +0530
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Form-IV not filed in the Owner present case
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Form-V not filed in the present Accident Report (IAR) case
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIA and VIB not filed Form-VIB from the Victim(s) in the present case
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 01.02.2019 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Accident in question took deficiency on the part of the place on 06.11.2018 and the Investigating Officer? If so, whether DAR was filed on 01.02.2019 any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to Legal offer was not given by the offer of the Insurance Company the insurance company
14. Date of the award 01.08.2022
15. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 01.02.2019 was/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 not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the MACT No. 55/2019 Digitally signed Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. by PRITAM 2 of 30 PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.08.01 16:16:58 +0530 passbook
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 01.02.2019 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the D-50 Shubham Enclave, claimant(s) Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
1. Vide this Judgment-cum-Award, the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') filed by petitioner Sh. Amarjeet Singh for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident, shall be decided.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2018, the petitioner was met with an accident in which he received grievous injuries i.e. fractured of Nasal bone, multiple fractures on face, head injury, around 10 stitches on forehead, right frontal fracture and injuries on his both eyes and same were operated by the doctor of Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The accident in question was happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle.
3. The petitioner unconscious for two days after the accident and he has spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- upon his treatment. During the period of his treatment, he remained on bed rest for more than two months.
MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 3 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:03 +0530
4. It has been further stated that as a result of the abovesaid accident, FIR No. 632/2018 dated 06.11.2018, PS Paschim Vihar U/s 279/338 of the IPC was registered against the respondent No.1.
5. It has been further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner/injured was 76 years of age and he was owner of Stationery shop and earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month.
6. The petitioner has claimed compensation under various heads and in total the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) along with the interest.
7. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 being the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
8. Written statement has been filed by the respondent no.2/insurance company stating therein that the offending vehicle no. DL- 10-SW-6115(Motorcycle) was not insured with the respondent no.2 at the time of insurance vide policy No. M4160814 as it is clear from the copy of insurance policy which has been filed in the DAR only for the period w.e.f 06.11.2018 (17:06:11 hours) to 05.11.2019 (23:59:59 hrs) and the accident had taken place on 06.11.2018 at 3:45 pm i.e. (15:45 hours) so that the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the respondent no.1 Kuldeep Kumar was not holding any driving license to drive the offending vehilce at the time of accident. It has been prayed that the present claim petition/DAR may kindly be dismissed.
9. No written statement has been filed by the respondent no.1 despite opportunities.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 4 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:07 +0530 by the Ld. Predecessor of the court on 14.10.2019:-
1. Whether the injured Sh. Amarjeet Singh suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 06.11.2018 at about 3:45 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-10SW 6115 by the respondent no.1 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, being owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
11. The petitioner has examined Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Senior Resident, Department of Neurology, Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospitals, Delhi as PW-1 and PW-1 has proved on record the disability certificate of the petitioner which has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. PW-1 has further stated that the petitioner has post traumatic moderate ataxia [Frontal Contusion with Neuro Cognitive impairment (PGI BBD-42%) ], therefore, total physical and mental disability is 75% which is permanent in nature.
12. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-1 deposed that the disability certificate Ex. PW1/1 does not bear the signatures of the patient. PW-1 further deposed that the petitioner suffered post traumatic moderate ataxia (Frontal Contusion with Neuro cognitive impairment (PGI BBD-42%), therefore, the total physical and mental disability is 75% permanent in nature and the disability of 75% is relating to whole body. PW-1 admitted it to be correct that it is not mentioned in the certificate that the disability of 75% is related to whole body. PW-1 also admitted it to be correct that under the heading, the disability, only the column no. 16 has been checked off in front of which MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 5 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:11 +0530 the details of the disability has been mentioned.
13. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner has examined his son Sh. Manpreet Singh as PW-2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand taken in the present claim petition. He has filed on record the following documents:-
1. Affidavit of Manpreet Singh Ex.PW2/A
2. Copy of Aadhar card of injured Mr. Amarjit Singh Sachdeva Ex.PW2/1(OSR)
3. Ex.PW2/2 i.e. the medical treatment records of injured has also been exhibited as Ex.PW4/1
4. Photograph of the injured Ex.PW2/3
5. Copy of bank statement of injured Ex.PW2/4(OSR)
6. DAR Ex.PW2/5(colly)
7. Two photographs of the shop of the petitioner Ex.PW2/6(colly, running into two photographs)
8. Copy of trade license Ex.PW2/7(OSR)
9. Copy of five NDMC receipts Ex.PW2/8(colly, running into five receipts) (OSR).
14. PW-2 has also relied upon the disability certificate which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1.
15. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-2 deposed that the offending vehicle was driving by the driver at the speed of more than 100 km/hr. PW-2 further deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from his back side so he could not see it. By way of volunteer, PW-2 states that he saw the offending vehicle just at the time of hitting of his father. PW-2 further deposed that he took his father to the hospital accompanying with the driver of the offending vehicle by e-rickshaw which was at the distance of 5 minutes. PW2 further deposed that immediately his father got admitted in emergency for about 1 to 2 hour. PW-2 further deposed that he was also present at that MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 6 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:17 +0530 time. PW-2 admitted it to be correct that except the attendant, none other is allowed in the emergency ward. By way of volunteer, PW-2 states that his wife is also accompanied him. PW-2 further deposed that he did not remember whether the driver gave the copy of the insurance to the IO in the hospital in his presence.
16. PW-2 further deposed that his father was/is not income tax payee. PW-2 further deposed that his father runs Sachdeva Store (Stationery) along with him. PW-2 further deposed that the shop is now being run by him. By way of volunteer, PW-2 states that his father has not re-joined the same after the accident. PW-2 further deposed that he did not file any income proof regarding the income of his father.
17. The petitioner has also examined ASI Prithi Singh as PW-3 and PW-3 deposed that he is the IO in the present matter and on 06.11.2018, after the accident, when he met with the respondent no.1, he told him that his vehicle is insured with the respondent no.2 and he also handed over the copy of the insurance to him. PW-3 further deposed that he seized the copy of insurance and seizure memo was prepared on 06.11.2018 itself. PW-3 further deposed that the respondent no.1 was not having the RC of the offending vehicle at that time as the offending vehicle was purchased on 06.11.2018 itself.
18. PW-3 has also exhibited the following documents:-
1. Copy of the seizure memo Ex. PW3/1.
2. The insurance policy Ex. PW3/2.
3. The copy of the FIR Ex.PW3/3.
19. In the cross-examination done by ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-3 deposed that he has not seen the accident as he had gone after receiving a call from the hospital. PW-3 further deposed that the insurance policy has given to him on the same day of the accident. PW-3 MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 7 of 30 PRITAM Digitally signed by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:21 +0530 further deposed that he has received the call at 4:05PM regarding the accident and the accident had taken place on 06.11.2018. PW-3 further deposed that according to his inquiry, the accident had taken place near about 3:45 pm. PW-3 further deposed that the policy was valid w.e.f.06.11.2018 itself.
20. PW-3 had shown the shown the insurance policy Ex. PW3/2 and asked the question as to from which date and which time, the said policy became operative and upto to which date, the same was valid. To this, PW-3 deposed that the said policy became operative from 06.11.2018 from 05:06 pm and the same was valid upto 05.11.2019 till 11:59 pm.
21. PW-3 answered the question that the accident took place at about 3:45 pm and he received the call at about 4:05 pm. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, he went to the hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured, thereafter, he enquired about the accident. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, Manpreet Singh, son of the injured met him and he produced one person namely Kuldeep and told him that he had caused the accident. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, he enquired from Kuldeep as to whether the offending vehicle was insured or not. PW-3 further deposed that Kuldeep stated to him that the vehicle was insured but he had yet to receive the copy of the insurance policy and thereafter, on the same day, he handed over a copy of the insurance policy to him after obtaining the same from the website of the insurance company.
22. The petitioner has further examined Ms. Parmeet Kaur, Senior Medical Record Executive, Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as PW-4 and PW-4 has exhibited the copies of the MLR, the discharge summary together with the other reports of the injured and the final bill for the amount of Rs.75,601/- as Ex. PW4/1.
23. PW-4 deposed that as per the discharge summary, patient MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 8 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:25 +0530 Amarjeet Singh was admitted on 06.11.2018 and discharged on 10.11.2018. PW-4 deposed that the abovesaid bill was paid in cash by the injured.
24. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-4 admitted it to be correct that she has not treated the patient. PW-4 admitted it to be correct that the bill for the amount of Rs.75,601/- is not bearing the signature or seal of anyone. By way of volunteer, PW-4 states that the abovesaid bill is computer generated bill and the same is on the letter head of the hospital. PW-4 further deposed that the billing department extracted the said bill from the computers. PW-4 further deposed that the person who extracted the said bill is available in the office of the said hospital. PW-4 further deposed that the said bills was extracted on 06.01.2020.
25. PW-4 has been further examined on 24.02.2020 and she has brought the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW4/2.
26. The petitioner has also examined Sh. Boban, Manager from Swadeshi Bajaj, Raja Garden, New Delhi as PW-5 and he has exhibited the purchase invoice of the vehicle no. DL-10SW-6115 in the name of Kuldeep Singh as Ex.PW5/1.
27. PW-5 deposed that whenever, they sold a new vehicle, they sold it after insuring the same from the insurance department. PW-5 further deposed that if any of their dealer sold the vehicle, they also insured the vehicle first then delivered the same to the customer.
28. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW-5 deposed that the original invoice was given to the person who purchased the vehicle and Ex.PW5/1 is the office copy of the same. PW-5 further deposed that computer operator must have withdrawn the MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 9 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:29 +0530 alleged copy of Ex.PW5/1 and he has not taken the copy from the computer. PW-5 further deposed that no certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was given to him to file before the court. PW-5 further deposed that they have received the insurance cover by email from the insurance company. PW-5 further deposed that it was received by them on 06.11.2018. PW-5 further deposed that it is not written on the insurance copy brought by him that it was received in the company on 06.11.2018.
29. PW-5 further deposed that he does not know at what time of day, the vehicle was delivered to the purchaser. PW-5 further deposed that he did not know if the company maintains such a record or not. PW-5 admitted it to be correct that the gate pass is issued to the purchaser for taking the vehicle outside their showroom. PW-5 further deposed that he did not know at what time, the gate pass was issued. PW-5 admitted it to be correct that invoice Ex.PW5/1 was issued on 09.11.2018 in the name of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. PW-5 further deposed that it is not written in the invoice that any insurance charges has been recovered by the company from the purchaser. PW-5 admitted it to be correct that the insurance company of the vehicle is given by the insurance company at the time of sale of the vehicle. PW-5 admitted it to be correct that the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser only after invoice is issued and in this case, the invoice was issued on 09.11.2018. By way of volunteer, PW-5 states that the invoice sometimes, given later after the delivery of the vehicle. PW-5 further deposed that only gate pass is being given to the purchaser and invoice is given later on.
30. PW-5 further deposed that he has no record to show that the vehicle was delivered to the purchaser before the issue of invoice dated 09.11.2018.
MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 10 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:34 +0530
31. PW-5 further deposed that he has no authority letter to show that he is authorized to appear before the court on behalf of Swadeshi Auto Pvt. Ltd. and he has no proof to show that Ex.PW5/1 and the insurance cover available with him was given to him by the company for bringing to this Court. PW-5 further deposed that he has not a personally summoned witness but the summons was served upon the company.
32. The petitioner has also examined himself as PW-6 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the claim petition. He has relied upon the following documents:
1. Affidavit for evidence of Amarjeet Singh Ex.PW6/A.
33. He has also relied upon the documents which have already exhibited in the testimonies of PWs.
34. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, PW-6 deposed that at present, his son namely Damandeep Singh is managing his business. PW-6 further deposed that he has filed the details of medical expenses accrued on his treatment in the court record. PW-6 further deposed that the document regarding the disability of 75% is on record. PW-6 further deposed that he was hit from back side and he did not see the face of the driver.
35. In its defence, the insurance company has examined its Assistant Manager Sh. Pankaj Rawat as R3W1 and R3W1 has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Affidavit for evidence of Pankaj Rawat Ex.R3W1/A
2. Office copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/1
3. Postal Receipt Ex.R3W1/2 MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 11 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:38 +0530
36. In the cross-examination done by Ld. Counse for the petitioner, R3W1 admitted it to be correct that the offending vehicle was insured on 06.11.2018. By way of volunteer, R3W1 states that the policy of offending vehicle was issued at 5:06 PM on 06.11.2018. R3W1 further deposed that the premium of the insurance policy was received online on 08.11.2018. R3W1 admitted it to be correct that without the insurance policy, a new vehicle is not allowed to run on the road. R3W1 further deposed that he did not know whether their company has verified the driving license of respondent no.1. R3W1 further deposed that Insurance company do not physically verify the existence of the vehicle at the time issuing insurance policy to a new vehicle.
37. I have gone through the testimonies of the witnesses; entire material available on record. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by Ld. counsels for the parties. My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE No. 138. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 166 & 140 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
39. The petitioner has examined his son namely Manpreet Singh Sachdeva as PW-2, who is an eye witness to the accident in question and also examined himself as PW-6. PW-2 & PW-6 have well explained the mode and manner of accident. They have reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in the petition. During their entire cross examination, nothing has come out so as to discredit their testimonies.
40. The respondent No. 1 has not led any evidence and in the considered opinion of this Court, he has utterly failed to prove on record that the accident in question was not caused on account of the negligence MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 12 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:43 +0530 of the respondent no.1.
41. In Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors (2009) 13 SC 530, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as 2009 ACJ 287, it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
42. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, the petitioner has been able to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligence of the respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE NO. 243. Nature of injuries, reimbursement of medical bills The petitioner has examined Ms. Parmeet Kaur, Senior Medical Record Executive from Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as PW-4 and this witness has exhibited the copies of MLR, discharge summary together with the other reports of the injured and the final bill for the amount of Rs.75,601/- Ex. PW4/1(colly) and Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/2.
The petitioner has also examined his son Sh. Manpreet Singh Sachdeva as PW-2 and PW-2 has exhibited the photograph of the injured Ex. PW2/3.
Perusal of MLC which is the part of DAR reveals that the injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question which MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 13 of 30 PRITAM Digitally signed by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:47 +0530 took place on 06.11.2018.
As per Medical Bill Ex.PW4/1(Colly), the injured was admitted in Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute on 06.11.2018 at 15:37 hour and discharged on 10.11.2018. PW-4 has also proved the medical bills to the tune of Rs.75,601/-.
I have gone through the medical bill exhibited by PW-4. The said bills are for the amount of Rs.75601/-. Accordingly, to my mind, the petitioner has been able to prove that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,601/-/- on account of medical bills. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted Rs.75,601/- on account of medical bills.
44. Compensation towards future treatment It has to be seen that in the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2217/2018, arising out of SLP (C) No. 7739 of 2017 titled as Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors., the Ld. MACT Court had granted a compensation of Rs.1281228/- to the petitioner Sh. Jagdish who was 24 years of age and who met with an accident which took place on 24.11.2011. He suffered 90% disability in both his hands. In appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi enhanced the compensation by Rs.219000/-. In further appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the total compensation of Rs.2538308/- along with the interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards future medical expenses to the injured and held that the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being.
In the light of the ratio of the aforesaid authority, it becomes apparently clear that in the aforesaid authority, the disability was 90% but in the case in hand, the disability is 75%.
MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 14 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH Date: SINGH 2022.08.01 16:17:52 +0530
Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances in the present matter, keeping in view the disability certificate of the petitioner, the long duration of the treatment of the petitioner and keeping in view the ratio of the abovestated authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I hereby award an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner on account of future treatment.
45. Pain & sufferings It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries as above, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
It has to be seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the orders dated 10.04.2017 passed in MAC Appeal No. 359/2009 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manjeet Singh & ors and MAC Appeal no. 407/2011 titled as Manjeet Singh vs. oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has granted the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000 after enhancing the same from Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation for loss of amenities of life was also enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In the abovestated authority titled as Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted a sum of Rs.2 lacs on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the disability suffered by the petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate as elicited above and the ratio of the authorities cited herein above, I hereby grant compensation of MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 15 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:17:58 +0530 Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
46. Compensation for conveyance & special diet Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner on special diet, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and duration of his treatment in the hospitals, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for expenses incurred on special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance.
47. Compensation towards attendant charges Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for attendant, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Hence, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges.
48. Compensation towards loss of income during treatment period The petitioner, in the claim petition, has stated that she was 76 years of age at the time of accident. In order to prove his age, son of the petitioner Sh. Manpreet Singh Sachdeva has placed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW2/1. In the said document, the year of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1942. The accident took place on 06.11.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner was about 76 years of age on the date of accident.
In the claim petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 16 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:03 +0530 running a stationery shop and earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. In order to prove his salary, the petitioner has examined his son Manpreet Singh Sachdeva as PW-2 who has exhibited the copy of bank statement of injured Ex.PW2/4(OSR), Two photographs of the shop of the petitioner Ex.PW2/6, copy of trade license Ex.PW2/7 (OSR) and copy of five NDMC receipts Ex. PW2/8(colly).
From the documents relied upon by the petitioner, his income cannot be ascertained. Mere stating that petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month is not sufficient. In the absence of evidence on record for the same, from the photographs of the shop and trade license, the income of the petitioner cannot be determined.
As such, I am of the considered opinion that the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act of an unskilled person. The date of accident is 06.11.2018 on which the minimum wages for an unskilled for the relevant period were Rs.14,000/- per month.
Except medical bill Ex.PW4/1(colly), nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that after discharge from Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute on 10.11.2018, he was taking regular treatment. However, considering the nature of injuries of the petitioner and he remained hospitalized for 4-5 days, therefore, in the interest of justice, one month loss of income is granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, Rs.14,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x1) is granted to the petitioner as loss of income during the period of his treatment.
49. Compensation on account of disability This Tribunal has received the disability certificate of the petitioner from Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi. In MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 17 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:09 +0530 the disability certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has suffered post traumatic moderate ataxia (Frontal Contusion with Neuro cognitive impairment (PGI BBD-42%), therefore, the total physical and mental disability is 75% permanent in nature and not likely to improve both physical and mental.
It has to be seen that in the authority titled as V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another cited as 2014 ACJ 1441 decided on 25.4.2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken the disability of the injured as 70% in accordance of the opinion of the doctors who had ascertained the disability as 70%. The doctor had opined that the injured was not able to sit cross-legged comfortably on the floor and the right leg movement of the injured was also affected adversely.
It has to be further seen that in MAC App. No. 1150/2014 & CM No.20819/2014 in the case titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Sen Gupta & Ors. cited decided on 24.12.2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the injured was suffering from 19% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 50%. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took into account the nature of disability which was akin to stiffness of the right upper limb of the injured and assessed the functional disability at 40%.
It has to be further seen that in MAC Appeal No. 1/2013 in case titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance vs. Arjun & Ors decided on 04.01.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per the disability certificate Ex. PW3/A, the disability was 50% but the same was taken as 25% functional by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the appeal which was decided on 04.01.2018, took the functional disability to the extent of 50%.
It is true that functional disability has to be assessed separately MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 18 of 30 PRITAM Digitally signed by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:14 +0530 in comparison to the physical disability, keeping in view the avocation/job/nature of work of the injured and the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured.
The petitioner claims that the petitioner was running the shop of Stationery and earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. As per the disability certificate Ex. PW1/17, the petitioner has suffered post traumatic moderate ataxia (Frontal Contusion with Neuro cognitive impairment (PGI BBD-42%), therefore, the total physical and mental disability is 75%. The total disability as per the disability certificate is 75% which is permanent in nature and not likely to improve both physical and mental.
Accordingly, considering the fact that the job of the petitioner is going to be hampered on account of the disability suffered by him and the ratio of the abovestated authorities, I hereby treat the functional disability of the petitioner as 75% which has been mentioned in his disability certificate Ex. PW1/1 on record.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment cited as Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020 titled as Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. decided on 17.09.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment cited as Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2020 titled as Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors. decided on 05.02.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
In view of the said authorities, to my mind, no future prospects is hereby granted to the petitioner.
Going by the ratio of the abovestated two authorities, the multiplier has to be selected as per the age of the deceased which is 76 MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 19 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:18 +0530 years in the case in hand, accordingly, the multiplier of 5 as per Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC shall be applicable.
In these circumstances, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs. 14,000/- x 12 x 5x 75/100).
50. Compensation towards loss of amenities of life.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts; the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner as elicited above and the long duration of treatment of the petitioner, I hereby grant compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life.
In the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
S Heads of Compensation Amount
N
o.
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.75,601/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of Rs.50,000/-
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
4. Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
5. Special diet Rs.20,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
7. Loss of Income during Rs.14,000/-
treatment period
8. Compensation on account of Rs.6,30,000/-
disability
9. Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.9,04,601/-
R E L I E F:-
51. I hereby pass an award of Rs.9,04,601/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and One Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 01.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner and against the MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No.signed Digitally 20 of 30 PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:23 +0530 respondents.
52. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
53. The respondent No.1 being the driver-cum-owner of the offending and respondent no.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
54. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD.
55. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.9,04,601/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and One Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as stated herein above with SBI,Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40711767202 CIF no. 90891362578, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour the petitioner.
MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 21 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:29 +0530
56. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is more than 80 years of age, therefore, he needs money for his treatment. Ld. Counsel further submitted that maximum amount may kindly be released to the petitioner.
57. Considering the submissions of ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Rs. 4,54,601/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred and One Only) is directed to be released to the petitioner.
58. The rest of the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- shall be kept in equal monthly FDR's of Rs.10,000/- each for the period of 45 months with cumulative interest in favour of the petitioner. However, money can be withdrawn through withdrawl slip only.
59. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(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 an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity 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 pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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 debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 22 of 30 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:33 +0530 debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
60. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail 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 as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
61. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/insurance company has argued that the accident took place on 06.11.2018 at 3:45 PM and the insurance policy was issued on 06.11.2018 at 5:06 PM after 81 minutes of the accident which clearly proves that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was taken after the accident to take the undue advantages. Ld. Counsel further argued that the respondent no.1 was also not holding any driving license to ride the offending motorcycle.
62. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent no.1 MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 23 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:38 +0530 purchased the offending motorcycle on the day of accident i.e. on 06.11.2018 and caused the accident. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that a new vehicle cannot be given to the purchaser by the Dealer until the same was got insured by the Dealer himself for the purchaser. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that from the testimony of PW-5, it is well established that the vehicle was insured by the Dealer before delivering the same to the respondent no.1.
63. PW-5 deposed that whenever they sold a new vehicle, they sold it after insuring the same from the insurance department. PW-5 further deposed that if any dealer sold the vehicle, they would insure the vehicle first and then delivered the same to the costumer. PW-5 further deposed in his cross-examination that they had received the insurance cover by the email from the insurance company on 06.11.2018 but it was not written on the insurance copy brought by him that it was received on 06.11.2018. PW-5 admitted the suggestion that the invoice Ex.PW5/1 was issued on 09.11.2018 in the name of Kuldeep (respondent no.1). PW-5 further deposed that it was not written in the invoice that any insurance charges were recovered by the company from the purchaser. PW-5 further admitted the suggestion that the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser after invoice was issued and in this case, the invoice was issued on 09.11.2018. PW-5 voluntarily deposed that the invoice sometime is given after the delivery of the vehicle.
64. From the testimony of PW-5, it is established that whenever a new vehicle is sold by a Dealer, the same is sold after insuring the said vehicle from the insurance company. It has been further established that the insurance cover was also sent by the insurance company(respondent no.2) to the dealer by email. It is also important to mention here that as per the vehicle particulars obtained by IO from State Transport MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 24 of 30 PRITAM Digitally signed by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:42 +0530 Department, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, the vehicle was registered with the Department on 06.11.2018 with comprehensive policy from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent no.2) vide policy certificate/cover note no. 1-W3L3VVD is valid from 06.11.2018 to 05.11.2019. Thus, it is further established that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent no. 1 on 06.11.2018 and the related documents were also furnished by the dealer before the State Transport Authority, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 06.11.2018 and therefore, in the vehicle particulars record, the name of the respondent no.1 as owner and date of registration as 06.11.2018 were mentioned along with the details of insurance company.
65. Considering all these material on record, there is no substance in the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 that the offending vehicle was insured after the accident and not prior to the accident. The vehicle is a brand new vehicle that was got insured by the dealer on behalf of respondent no.1 who purchased the said vehicle. The insurance company does not inspect a new vehicle when the same got insured by the dealer. The respondent no.1 is taking the defence that the respondent no.1 got insured the vehicle after the accident. The question arises how an individual can get a new vehicle insured on his own when he is not having the complete details of the vehicle.
66. In the insurance policy cover Ex.PW3/2 not only the vehicle number but its engine number, chasis number, make and model everything have been mentioned. It is beyond the stretch of imagination that the first respondent no.1 caused the accident, thereafter, in order to avoid his liability, he got insured the vehicle from the respondent no.2/insurance company. The question arises from where the respondent no.1 got the engine number, chassis number and other particulars of the MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 25 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:46 +0530 vehicle and even if it is presumed that the respondent no.1 on his own got the insurance of the offending vehicle then the question further arises why the insurance company did not get conducted the inspection of the vehicle. Why did the insurance company exempted the inspection of the vehicle? How did the insurance company come to know that it was a brand new vehicle? Hence, the defence of the respondent no.2 that the offending vehicle was not insured with it at the time of insurance has no substance.
67. In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/insurance company. The person who purchase a vehicle makes the payment of insurance policy to the dealer and the dealer on his own get insured the vehicle and make the payment to the insurance company. After making the payment to the dealer and receiving the vehicle from the dealer, the purchaser/customer has no further liability towards the insurance of the vehicle till the validity of insurance cover and if the dealer got the insurance covers late then the insurance company should take action against the dealer but a customer cannot be penalized for the same. Hence, it is well established that the vehicle was got insured by the respondent no.1 before the accident.
68. The respondent no.2 gave a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1 to the respondent no.1 to produce the driving license but the respondent no.1 has failed to produce the driving license to the respondent no.2. IO has also not filed the driving license of respondent no.1 on record. The respondent no.1 has also not filed his driving license before the court. From all this, it is established that the respondent no.1 was not holding the driving license on the date and time of the accident when he caused the accident. The driving of the motor MACT No. 55/2019 Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 26 of 30 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:18:53 +0530 vehicle without driving license is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 is granted recovery rights against the respondent no.1 but only after depositing the award amount in favour of the petitioner.
69. Since, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 at the time of accident, the respondent no.2/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under the intimation to this court and under intimation to the petitioner as well. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
70. File be consigned to Record Room.
71. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 09.09.2022.
72. A copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost.
73. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE(MCTAP). A copy of this award be sent by the Ahlmad on the e-mail address of Nodal Officer of the bank immediately as mentioned inDigitally the award.
signed
PRITAM by PRITAM
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2022.08.01
Announced in the open court 16:18:58 +0530
On 1st August, 2022 (PRITAM SINGH)
P.O.MACT (WEST-01)
THC/Delhi/01.08.2022
MACT No. 55/2019
Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 27 of 30
FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 06.11.2018
2. Name of the injured : Amarjeet Singh
3. Age of the injured : 76 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Businessman
5. Income of the injured : Rs.14,000/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 06.11.2018 to 10.11.2018
8. Period of Hospitalization : 06.11.2018 to 10.11.2018
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : Disability certificate containing 75% permanent physical disability
10. Computation of Compensation S. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal No.
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on Rs.75,601/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.20,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.20,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.20,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 6,30,000/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.14,000/- (Loss of income during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.50,000,/- towards future treatment
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
MACT No. 55/2019
Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 28 of 30
Digitally signed
PRITAM by PRITAM
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2022.08.01
16:19:04 +0530
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage N.A.
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
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 In the present case the petitioner has assessed and nature of suffered 75% permanent physical disability as permanent disability.
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or N/A
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of Functional disability of the petitioner to
earning capacity in
the extent of 75% has been taken.
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - As above
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.9,04,601/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs
COMPENSATION Four Thousand Six Hundred and One
Only)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 6% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs. (1,89,966.21)
the date of award (From 01.02.2019 to 01.08.2022 i.e. 3
years and 6 months)
Total amount including Rs. 10,94,567.21
MACT No. 55/2019
Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 29
Digitally of 30
signed
by PRITAM
PRITAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.08.01
16:19:08 +0530
17. interest (Rs.9,04,601/- + Rs.1,89,966.21)
18. Award amount released Rs.4,54,601/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.4,50,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 09.09.2022
compliance of the
award.
PRITAM Digitally
SINGH
signed by PRITAM
SINGH Date: 2022.08.01 16:19:14
+0530
( PRITAM SINGH)
P.O. MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi/01.08.2022
MACT No. 55/2019
Amarjeet Singh vs. Kuldeep & ors. Page No. 30 of 30