Delhi District Court
Sh. Anuj Kumar vs Sh. Gaurav Sharma (Driver) on 18 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUCHI LALER, PRESIDING
OFFICER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD, DELHI
MACT No. 830/16
In the matter of:
Sh. Anuj Kumar
S/o Sh. Harbal Singh,
R/o H.No. G-1, 6/120,
Sec - 2, Rajinder Nagar,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Gaurav Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Gyan Chand Sharma,
R/o H.No. D-420, JJ Camp
New Sanjay Amar,
Shahdara, Delhi
2. Sh. Yudhister,
S/o Sh. Jugdish,
R/o 7/46B, 32/47
Yudhister Gali
Vishwas Nagar
Shahdara, Delhi
3. New India Insurance Company Limited
12/1, Company Limited,
Jeevan Raksha Building,
Asif Ali Road,
New Delhi .... Respondents
MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 1 of 22 Date of Institution : 04.11.2015 Date of Arguments : 17.09.2020 Date of Judgment : 18.09.2020 AWARD
1. By way of this award, the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) would be decided. The claim for compensation relates to injuries suffered by petitioner / Sh. Anuj Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 31.08.2015 at about 12.45 pm at T-Point, 18-Quarter, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. FIR No. 714/15, U/s 279/337 IPC and 185 of M.V. Act was registered at PS Farsh Bazar. The offending vehicle involved in this accident is Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 13SN 1075 which at the time of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
2. The case of petitioner, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 30-31.08.2015, he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Satya Pal Singh on motorcycle bearing no. DL 1SS 2686 which was being driven by him. At about 12.45 am of 31.08.2015, when they reached T-Point, 18 Quarter, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara suddenly motorcycle bearing no. DL MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 2 of 22 13SN 1075 being driven by respondent no.1 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite side and while changing its lane, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. Respondent no. 1 and 2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.01.2016.
4. Respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company filed a written statement wherein it is stated that as per the FIR, the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and therefore, the compensation, if any awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be paid by the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle. It is also stated in the written statement that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation unless and until it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license on the date of accident. It is however admitted that the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 on the date of accident in the name of respondent no. 2.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23.02.2016:
(i). Whether respondent No. 1 was driving vehicle MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 3 of 22 bearing no. DL-13SN-1075 on 31.08.2015 at 12.45 am at T Point, 18 Quarter, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against motorcycle no. DL 1SS 2686 as a result its occupant, namely, Sh. Anuj Kumar fell down and sustained injuries? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP
(iii). Relief.
6. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents such as Medical Treatment Record as Ex.PW1/1; Medical Bills as Ex.PW1/2; Identity Card of petitioner as Ex.PW1/3; Aadhar Card of petitioner as Ex.PW1/4 and DAR as Ex.PW1/5.
A summoned witness, namely, HC Ram Singh was examined as PW-2 to prove the salary slips of petitioner Ex.PW2/A. Dr. Manish Chadha was examined as PW-3 on 24.08.2017 and again as PW-7 on 04.05.2018. He proved the disability certificate dated 06.10.2016 as Ex.PW3/A and disability certificate dated 02.04.2018 as Ex.PW7/A. Petitioner further examined Sh. Satya Pal Singh, MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 4 of 22 who was pillion rider of the motorcycle being driven by petitioner, as PW-4. Ct. Sachin was summoned and examined as PW-5 who proved the salary slips Ex.PW5/A. Petitioner also examined HC Amit Tomar as PW-6 to prove his leave record and service record Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.
The aforesaid witnesses were duly cross examined by ld. counsel for Insurance Company.
7. Respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal.
8. Final arguments heard on behalf of petitioner and Insurance Company. Record perused. None appeared for respondent no. 1 and 2 to address final arguments.
9. Issue wise findings are as under:-
10. ISSUE NO. 1 - In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 5 of 22 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari Vs. Amirchand & Ors. 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. The petitioner deposed regarding the manner in which the accident took place in para no. 2 of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, which is reproduced as under:-
"2. I say that on 30-31.08.2015, I along with constable Satya Pal Singh was on duty. My duty was started from 11.00 pm to 7.00 am I and Constable Satya Pal Singh was on patrolling on motor cycle no. DL 1SS 2686 and I was as motor cycle rider. At about 12.45 am, I and Ct. Satya Pal Singh was coming towards Road Nai Sadak to 60 Ft. Road, in the meanwhile a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 13SN 1075 (Yamaha FZ - S) which was being driven by its driver, at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 6 of 22 came from Jwala Nagar side / opposite and hit the motor cycle No. DL 1SS 2686 with a great force after changing its driving lane. As a result of this motor cycle fell down on the road. I sustained grievous injuries i.e. closed fracture displaced talus right foot and other multiple injuries. I was immediately taken to GTB Hosital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, where my MLC No. A-
3803/2015 was prepared by the doctor.
Thereafter, I was admitted in Family Health Care Hospital, 15HC-1, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, where I was hospitalized from 04.09.2015 to 08.09.2015. My medical treatment is still continuing as an outdoor patient."
12. PW-1 was cross examined by ld. counsel for Insurance Company and the relevant portion regarding the manner in which the accident took place is reproduced as under:-
"The accident occurred on 30/31.08.2015 at around 12.30 mid night. I was on patrolling. I was driving the motorcycle and one Ct. Satya Pal Singh was riding pillion. The offending MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 7 of 22 vehicle is motorcycle and hit me from front side. I admitted to GTB Hospital. During patrolling, one checking officer came and took me to GTB Hospital."
13. Nothing substantial could be extracted in the cross examination of PW-1 so as to doubt his veracity regarding the manner of accident. Petitioner also examined PW-4 Satya Pal Singh, who in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A, testified regarding the manner in which the accident took place on the same lines as deposed by PW-1/petitioner. The said witness was cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent / Insurance Company, however, no question regarding the manner in which the accident took place was put to him. Therefore, the testimony of PW-4 corroborates the version of PW-1/petitioner and from the testimonies of the said witnesses, it can be concluded for the purpose of disposal of the present petition that the accident took place in the manner as testified by PW-1 in para no. 2 of his affidavit as reproduced above.
14. Further, the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses is duly supported by the Mechanical Inspection Report as well as the MLC prepared at GTB Hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle / respondent no. 1 did not prefer to step into the MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 8 of 22 witness box so adverse inference needs to be drawn against him.
15. Considering the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, which is also duly supported by documents such as FIR, MLC, Mechanical Inspection Report etc., it is held that on 31.08.2015, at 12.45 am, the motorcycle of the petitioner was hit by motorcycle bearing no. DL 13SN 1075 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. It also stands proved that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and was insured with respondent no. 3. Issue no. 1 is answered in favour of petitioner.
16. Issue No. 2 - In view of finding on aforesaid issue, the petitioner is entitled to compensation, however, the quantum of compensation and the liability to pay the same etc. still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the claim tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be wind fall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 9 of 22
17. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v/s M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii damages to MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 10 of 22 compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
18. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i). Reimbursement of medical expenses: Petitioner Sh.
Anuj Kumar suffered grievous injury in the accident. In the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner stated in para no. 3 that he had spent amount of Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment. The petitioner also filed medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly) of Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital and Family Health Care Hospital as well as of some chemist. The total of the said bills comes to Rs.21,657/-.
During his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he is covered by CGEHS and that the bill with respect to the surgery conducted with respect to 05.09.2015 at Family Health Care MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 11 of 22 Hospital, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad was reimbursed by his department. PW-1 further stated that the doctor who had treated him had left the hospital and, consequently, he received treatment from the said doctor even thereafter and that his expenditure at Family Care Hospital was reimbursed by the department.
Be that as it may, the petitioner has enclosed the original bills as Ex.PW1/2 which shows that the said bills were not presented for encashment and that the other bills which the petitioner has not annexed were submitted to the department for reimbursement. Moreover, in judgment titled as Santosh Patro Vs. National Insurance Company decided on 21.11.2017 in MACA No. 714/12, it was held that even if free medical facility is availed in government hospital, sundry expenses are incurred which needs to be compensated. Keeping in mind the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner which led to permanent disability and the fact that the petitioner has annexed original bills Ex.PW1/2 amounting to Rs.21,657/-, the petitioner is awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.22,000/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities: The petitioner / PW-1 has proved that he suffered grievous injuries in the said accident i.e. fracture in the talus of right foot and he MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 12 of 22 also suffered 40% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. The petitioner remained hospitalized at Family Health Care Hospital w.e.f. 15.04.2015 till 08.09.2015 as mentioned in his Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/1 (colly). The treatment of the petitioner continued even thereafter till April, 2016. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was treated for the same, so there can be no doubt that he must have suffered pain and suffering, physical as well as mental, owing to this injury. Keeping in view the extent and nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and duration of treatment taken by him an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to him towards mental and physical shock and pain. The petitioner has sustained disability in his right lower limb, his daily routine activities are bound to be affected, thus, he is held entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities / enjoyment of life.
(iii) Loss of Income during Treatment: The petitioner/PW-1 testified in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he could not attend his duties for 7 months and 25 days due to the injury sustained in the accident. In order to prove the said fact, the petitioner examined PW-6 HC Amarveer Tomar who produced the leave record of the petitioner Ex.PW6/A, as per which the petitioner was on leave for a total period of 235 days i.e. from 31.08.2015 MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 13 of 22 to 24.04.2016. The salary slips for the month of August, 2015 is Ex.PW5/A as per which the total salary drawn by the petitioner was Rs.33,988/-. As per Order Ex.PW6/A, the said leave of 235 days was deducted from the leave account of the petitioner as 130 commuted leave and 105 days earned leave. As per the salary drawn by the petitioner for the month of August, 2015, the total salary for 235 days of leave is Rs.2,66,239/- (Rs.33,988 ÷ 30 x 235). In view of above, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs.2,66,239/-.
(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges:
The petitioner, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has testified that he has incurred expenses of Rs.15,000/- on conveyance, Rs.15,000/- as special diet and Rs.15,000/- as attendant charges. No document in support of the aforesaid claim has been produced before the Tribunal, however, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner must have incurred conveyance charges in visiting the hospital / doctors during his treatment and must have taken special diet for his speedy recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet.
Though, no evidence qua hiring of attendant has been led, the treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 14 of 22 time, it cannot be ignored that the family members of petitioner must have rendered assistance to him in his daily chores when he was unable to move or to do things on his own, consequently, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges or the gratuitous services which might have been rendered by his family members during the period of his treatment, hospitalization and immobility. Hence, a total sum of Rs. 45,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(v). Loss of Future Income : PW-3 Dr. Manish Chadda on 24.08.2017, proved the disability certificate dated 06.10.2016 of petitioner as Ex.PW1/A. As per the said disability certificate the disability of the petitioner is temporary in nature.
As the petitioner claimed that the disability was permanent, hence, the said doctor was again examined as PW-7 on 04.05.2018, in which he proved disability certificate dated 02.04.2018 as Ex.PW7/A. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW7/A, the petitioner suffered 40% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. The said witness was cross examined by ld. counsel for Insurance Company in which he clarified that the first disability certificate was issued when the injury was one year old and the second certificate was issued after about more than 2 years of the accident. He clarified that the disability in his opinion and the opinion of the Medical MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 15 of 22 Board is permanent in nature and not likely to improve. PW-7 further testified that due to the said disability, it would be difficult for the petitioner to squat, walk, run or stand on the injured leg. He further testified that the petitioner / injured can walk without support, however, with difficulty. Therefore, as per the testimony of PW-3 (also PW-7), the petitioner suffered 40% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb which adversely, affected his capacity to walk, run or stand on the injured leg.
The petitioner is a police constable employed with Delhi Police and in para no. 7 of his affidavit, he has testified that due to accident his future plans and prospects have come to an end. During the course of arguments, it was vehemently argued by ld. counsel for the Insurance Company that the petitioner is a government servant employed in Delhi Police and that he has not suffered any loss of income because of the disability nor he is likely to suffer any such loss in future even post retirement as he will continue to receive the same perks and salary which he was receiving prior to the accident in similar manner like any other constable in Delhi Police. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld. counsel for petitioner that the future prospects of promotion of the petitioner have diminished because of the accident as physical fitness is one MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 16 of 22 of the requirements for early promotions in police services. He further submitted that even post retirement it would be difficult for the petitioner to secure any job / employment in view of the disability that he has suffered and, therefore, he cannot be denied loss of future income merely because he is a government servant.
Ld. counsel for petitioner in this regard also relied upon judgment titled as Desh Raj Singh Gautam Vs. Sunil Kumar in MAC Appeal No. 632/2007, dated 20.05.2016 wherein the injured was a regular employee of MTNL and Hon'ble Delhi High Court computed loss of income post retirement by using the multiplier of 9 (Nine).
In light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the loss of income of the present petitioner post retirement is also required to be computed by calculating it with the multiplier of 9 (Nine). The salary of the petitioner at the time of the accident was Rs. 33,988/- as per Ex.PW5/A. The disability of the petitioner as per the disability certificate Ex.PW7/A is 40% in respect of right lower limb and the functional disability of the petitioner, keeping in mind his profession, is adjudged to be 20%. Applying the said functional disability along with multiplier of 9 (Nine), the loss of future income of the petitioner is as under:- (33,988 X 12 X 9 X MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 17 of 22 20/100 = 7,34,140/-). Thus, the total loss of future income comes to Rs.7,34,140/- which is so awarded to the petitioner.
19. The total compensation awarded to the petitioner Sh. Anuj Kumar is summarized as under:-
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.22,000/-
expenses
2. Pain and Suffering and Loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-
Amenities
3. Loss of Income during Treatment: Rs.2,66,239/-
4. Conveyance, Special Diet and Rs. 45,000/-
Attendant Charges
5. Loss of Future Income Rs.7,34,140/-
Rs.12,17,379/-
(rounded off to Rs.12,18,000/-)
20. LIABILITY: Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 is the principal tort feasor being driver and respondent no.2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured. In MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 18 of 22 the instant case, the Insurance Company has made an attempt to evade its liability on the ground that the respondent no.1 / driver was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and Section 185 of M.V. Act has been invoked against him so there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that recovery rights be granted to the Insurance Company against respondent no. 1 and 2. No doubt, in the MLC of respondent no.1, the presence of alcohol has been detected, however, the quantity of alcohol has not been specified therein. There is nothing on record to suggest that the quantity of alcohol in the blood of respondent no.1 was beyond permissible limit as mentioned in Section 185 of the Act. The Insurance Company had to prove that the consumption of alcohol by the respondent no.1 was beyond 30 mg per 100 ml of blood which it has failed to do. In the absence thereof, it cannot be presumed that the intoxication was such an extent that the respondent no.1 committed an offence under Section 185 of M.V. Act, consequently, violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
RELIEF:
In view of findings on the aforesaid issues, the MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 19 of 22 Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.12,18,000/- to petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from today. Notice regarding deposit of the said amount be given to the petitioner and to his counsel.
RELEASE:
Out of the awarded amount, Rs.1,18,000/- is directed to be released into the saving account of the petitioner. Remaining amount of Rs.11,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of hundred monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in petitioner's Saving / MACT Claims SB Account. The interest on the above said FDRs shall be credited automatically through ECS in the saving account of the petitioner. FDRs amount shall be paid on maturity basis in the same account of the petitioner against which interest amount is being credited through ECS. The original FDRs shall MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 20 of 22 be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the statement containing FDRs numbers, FDRs amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished to the claimant.
No loan, advance or withdrawal / pre-mature discharge shall be allowed on the above-said FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal. The bank shall not open any joint account of the petitioner. The petitioner / claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw and utilize the amount released in his account through withdrawal form or biometric authentication.
The withdrawal from the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner / claimant shall be after due verification by the bank and the bank shall issue photo identity card to the petitioner to facilitate the identity.
No cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the claimant / petitioner without the permission of this Tribunal. 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 so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 21 of 22 have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
The Manager, UCO Bank or any other bank as desired by the claimant shall open the saving bank account of the claimant or transfer to their existing account, if any, near to his residence after taking relevant documents. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and FDRs to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, KKD, Delhi.
With these observations, the DAR stands disposed off.
A copy of this award be sent to ld. counsels for the parties through email and be also given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of award to Ld. MM concerned and DLSA, Shahdara.
Copy of Form IVB and V duly filed shall be treated as a part of this award.
File be consigned to Record Room and a separate file for compliance be maintained for 04.12.2020.
Digitally signed by
SHUCHI LALER SHUCHI LALER
Announced in open court (SHUCHI LALER)
On 18.09.2020 PO-MACT/SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
MACT No. 830/16 Sh. Anuj Kumar V/s. Sh. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Page No. 22 of 22