Delhi District Court
Sh. Purshottam vs Mahmood Ali ............. Driver on 21 February, 2018
MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5178/16(Old MACP No. 6C/13)
Sh. Purshottam
S/o Sh Satveer Singh
R/o H.No. 15/25/2, Mangol Pur Kalan,
Opposite Sector2, Pocket4, Rohini, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mahmood Ali ............. Driver
S/o Sh Usman Khan
R/o H.No. D1266/54, Tajpur Pahari,
Badarpur, Delhi (Driver)
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Tek Chand
R/o H.No. K182, Saurabh Vihar,
Delhi.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd
2nd Floor, FAI House,
10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi (Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.02.2013
Date of Arguments : 21.02.2018
Date of Award : 21.02.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. Ram Kumar Prabhakar, Adv for injured.
Driver and registered owner are exparte.
Sh. S.K Tyagi, Adv for insurance co.
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 1 of 16
MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. The petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in motor vehicular accident which occurred on 03.12.2012 at about 10.00 pm at Jagat Chowk, near Drain Budh Vihar, Y Block Red Light, Mangol Puri, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS. Mangol Puri, involving Truck bearing registration no. HR55P2809 (alleged offending vehicle).
2. According to DAR, on 03.12.2012, the petitioner/injured Purshottam was returning to his house after finishing his duty on his motorcycle no. MH12BU4182. At about 10:00 pm, when he reached near Budh Vihar Nala, Y Block, Mangol Puri, Red Light, Delhi, one Mixer Truck bearing registration No. HR55P2809 which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against his motorcycle from back side. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road and came under the front portion of aforesaid truck and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to SGM Hospital, where he was examined vide MLC No. 20730. It is claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR55P2809 by its driver/R1 namely Mahmood Ali, owned by Sh. Ashok Kumar/R2 and the same was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd/R3 during the period in question. FIR No. 458/12 u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Mangol Puri with regard to the said accident.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 although put their appearance on 06.02.2013 when DAR was filed but they failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient opportunities and also failed to appear before the Tribunal on subsequent date of 07.03.13. Consequently, both of them were proceeded exparte on 28.03.2013.
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 2 of 16MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018
4. In its written statement, the insurance company/respondent no. 3 has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V. Act. The contents of claim petition have been simply denied for want of knowledge. It has however admitted that the vehicle no. HR55P2809 was insured with it in the name of respondent no. 2 namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, vide policy no. 81581368 , having validity from 15.10.12 to 14.10.13. It is averred that permit of the aforesaid vehicle was issued in the name of Sh. Ashok Bhardwaj which was valid from 06.12.12 to 01.11.13 vide National Permit bearing no. NP/HR/5/122012/12868 dated 06.12.12. It is claimed that accident took place on 03.12.12, whereas the permit was valid from 06.12.12, therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven without having any valid permit at that time. Based on these averments, it has claimed that it is not liable to pay anything to the petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor vide order dated 28.03.2013:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in the road side accident occurred on 03.12.2012 at about 10.00 pm, Jagat Chowk, near drain Budh Vihar, Y Block Red Light, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle no. HR55P 2809, Truck?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are (sicpetitioner is) entitled for compensation as prayed for. if so to what extent and from which of the respondents?OPP
3. Relief.
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 3 of 16MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018
6. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 HC Bhim Singh. He closed his evidence on 20.07.15 through his counsel. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by R1 & R2, both being already exparte. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has, however, examined only one witness i.e. R3W1 Sh. Abhishek Kujur, Assistant Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and closed its RE through its counsel on 03.11.16.
7. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the material available on record. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Purshottam i.e. injured himself is relevant. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A on the lines of averments made in the DAR petition to the effect that on 03.12.2012, he was going from Mangol Puri Police Station to his home on his motorcycle no. MH12BU4182. At about 10:00 pm, when he reached Budh Vihar Nala, near Y Block, Mangol Puri, Red Light, then all of a sudden, the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. HR55P2809 , which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came and hit against him from behind. As a result thereof, he fell down and came under the front wheel of the offending vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. FIR No. 458/2012, u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Mangol Puri with regard to said accident.
He has relied upon the following documents:
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of AIR Ex PW1/1 (colly)
2. Copy of Discharge slip MarkA
alongwith medical prescription
slips
3. Copy of salary slip MarkB
4. Copy of Office I.D Card Ex. PW1/2
5. Copy of medical bills Ex. PW1/3(12 pages)
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 4 of 16
MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018
9. During his crossexamination on behalf of R3, he deposed that he was posted in PS. Aman Vihar. On that day, he was on duty till 9:00 pm. He further deposed that he was the owner of motorcycle bearing no. MH12BU 4182, however he had lost his registration certificate of above said vehicle in the said accident. He further deposed that the police had recorded his statement at SGM Hospital but he did not remember at what time police had recorded his statement at the hospital. He deposed that he could tell the speed of the offending vehicle as he had seen the same from the side view mirror of his motorcycle. He also deposed that he was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident. The alleged offending truck overtook him from right side. He volunteered that the said truck had hit him from behind. He admitted that he had not visited the spot of accident after the accident. The road on which the accident took place was having no divider. He denied the suggestion that he was driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and that is why, the motorcycle got skid. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road. He also denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the alleged offending vehicle had not hit the motorcycle from the back side. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness, being already exparte.
10. It is quite evident from the testimony of the aforesaid witness that the respondents, more particularly the insurance company, failed to impeach his testimony on the aspect of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck by respondent no. 1 during his crossexamination.
11. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 /driver of the alleged offending vehicle was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place but still he preferred not to contest the DAR petition. He did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 5 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR55P 2809 by him.
12. It is also pertinent to note that FIR No. 458/12 u/s 279/337 IPC (which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly) was registered at PS. Mangol Puri with regard to accident in question on 04.12.2012 i.e. on next day of the accident which occurred on 03.12.2012 at 10:00 pm. Thus, FIR in question was promptly lodged with regard to the accident in question. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of truck no. HR55P2809 at the instance of petitioner. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Mahmood Ali (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted(which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly) for offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Truck No. HR55P2809 by him. Same also points out towards the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1 and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent.
13. The MLC (which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of injured Purshottam prepared at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, would show that he had been removed to said hospital on 03.12.2012 at 10:40 pm with alleged history of RTA. It is mentioned in said MLC that he had sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
14. Not only this, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 09.12.2012 (which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Truck No. HR55P2809, Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 6 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 would show fresh damages i.e. scratches on its front bumper's left side and its front left side indicator light glass was also found broken. Likewise, the copy of mechanical inspection report dated 09.12.2012 of motorcycle no. MH12BU 4182 (which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly), would show that its right side body and body tail were scratched and its right front indicator light was also found damaged. Same also corroborate the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent.
15. Apart from above, the notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act (which is part of AIR Ex. PW1/1 colly) was served upon respondent no. 2/registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. In reply thereto, he mentioned that the said vehicle was being driven by his driver namely Mahmood Ali/R1 on 03.12.2012. Said reply also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 03.12.2012 at about 10.00 pm near Budh Vihar Nala, Y Block, Mangol Puri, Red Light, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR55P2809 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 217. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 7 of 16MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 MEDICAL EXPENSES
18. PW1 Sh. Purshottam i.e. the injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that after the accident, he was removed to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Due to the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. Fracture Left Clavicle and Fracture Superior & Inferior Public Rami with Fracture Ribs Left Side. He deposed that he had spent about Rs. 50,000/ towards his medical treatment. He has relied upon his medical bills as Ex. PW1/3(colly) to the tune of Rs. 8,411/ only. During crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had not got reimbursed the medical bills of Rs. 5,417/, Rs. 1,970/, Rs. 790/, Rs. 225/ and Rs. 309/from his department. He further deposed that he can produce the certificate that he had not received the same from Police Department. However, he admitted that he had not filed any documentary proof to show that he had incurred Rs. 50,000/ on medical bills (except the original bills filed on record). It may be noted here that the petitioner/injured has filed medical bills(Ex. PW1/3 colly) only to the tune of Rs. 8,411/ in all. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have not led any evidence in rebuttal to the case of petitioner on this aspect. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,411/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME/LEAVES
19. Injured namely Sh. Purshottam (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he was 35 years old; he was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 29,262/ at the time of accident in question. He remained on medical leaves w.e.f. 04.12.2012 to 05.02.2013 and during that period, he remained on complete bed rest. During crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 8 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 he admitted that he had not filed any document regarding his promotion and financial losses as mentioned in para 8 of his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). He was not crossexamined by respondents no. 1 & 2, both having already been proceeded exparte.
20. PW2 is the Official from the office of employer of injured. He produced the certified copy of pay slip of the injured for the month July 2013 and June 2015. He also produced the leave record of HC Purshottam. He collectively exhibited the aforesaid records as Ex. PW2/1(colly). The leave record shows that injured Purshottam availed 63 days medical leaves due to the accident. The salary record shows that the gross salary of HC Purshottam for the month of July 2013 and June 2015, were Rs. 31,091/ and Rs. 37,416/ per month respectively. During his crossexamination, he admitted that HC Purshottam received full pay from the department during medical leave. He also admitted that there is no loss of income during medical leave. He further deposed that at the time of retirement, HC Purshottam shall be having benefits of salary which includes Basic Pay, Grade Pay and DA only. However, he would not be entitled for other heads at the time of retirement for leave encashment.
21. As per the documentary evidence brought on record, the petitioner/injured was working as HC in Delhi Police and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 29,262/ at the time of accident. The accident in question took place on 03.12.2012. The petitioner has proved his salary slip for the month of July 2013 and June 2015. He has not filed any documentary proof in respect of his monthly salary for the Month of December 2012, during which the accident in question had occurred. However, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A categorically deposed that his monthly salary was Rs. 29,262/ at that time. This relevant portion of his testimony has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. Hence, monthly salary of the petitioner/injured for the month of December, is taken as Rs. 29,262/.
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 9 of 16MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 Petitioner has also proved that he took 63 days medical leaves from his office due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. PW2 has exhibited the aforesaid records in respect of his salary and leaves as Ex. PW2/1(colly). The ocular testimony of PW1 is corroborated by the testimony of PW2 and the record produced by him during the course of inquiry as already noted above. Hence, a sum of Rs.61,450/(rounded off) (Rs. 29,262/ x 63/30) is awarded in favour of petitioner for loss of leaves. (Reliance placed on "Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors, MAC APP No. 770/11, decided on 21.05.12, Sandeep Mishra Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav & Ors., MAC APP No. 215/10, decided on 04.09.12, Satyawati Wadhwa Vs. Jitender Singh & Ors, MAC APP No. 73/13, decided on 10.05.16 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Constable Mohar Singh & Ors., MAC APP No. 657/2015 decided on 16.10.17, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court) PAIN & SUFFERING
22. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under: " It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
23. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he had sustained Fracture Left Clavicle and Fracture Superior & Inferior Public Rami with Fracture Ribs Left Side. Apart from the fact that the relevant portion of his testimony in this regard, has gone Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 10 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is duly corroborated with his medical treatment record (Mark A)filed by him. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 75,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
24. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered Fracture Left Clavicle and Fracture Superior & Inferior Public Rami with Fracture Ribs Left Side due to accident in question. Thus, he would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, for considerable period and his quality of life had been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. The petitioner/injured as PW1 has deposed that he had spent Rs. 25,000/ towards special diet and Rs. 10,000/ towards conveyance. However, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained Fracture Left Clavicle and Fracture Superior & Inferior Public Rami with Fracture Ribs Left Side. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would also have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 11 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/ for conveyance charges and Rs. 10,000/each for special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, t he total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 8,411/
2. Loss of income/leaves Rs. 61,450/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/
4. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/
5. Conveyance, special diet and attendant Rs. 25,000/ charges Total Rs. 1,94,861/ Rounded off to Rs. 1,95,000/
26. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance company sought to avoid the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation amount on the ground that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR55P2809 was not having any valid permit at the time of accident in question. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance company has examined Sh. Abhishek Kujur, Assistant Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. as R3W1. Said witness has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A that the respondents failed to produce valid DL, permit and fitness certificate and insurance policy, which were valid at the time of accident. He further deposed that the permit of the offending vehicle was valid from 06.12.12 to 01.11.13 vide National Permit bearing no. NP/HR/5/122012/12868 dated 06.12.12. He deposed that the accident took place on 03.12.12, whereas the said permit was valid w.e.f. 06.12.12, therefore, at the time of accident, the said vehicle was being used by respondent no. 2/owner without having any valid permit. He has relied upon Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 12 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 copy of notice as Ex. R3W1/2 and postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/3 & Ex. R3W1/4 regarding dispatch of said notice upon driver and registered owner. Said witness has not been crossexamined at all by driver and registered owner despite grant of opportunity.
27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the provision contained in Section 66 (1) of M.V Act which read as under: Necessity for Permits:(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
28. It is quite clear from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that transport vehicle cannot be used in any public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by Regional or State Transport Authority. Thus, there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for want of valid permit in respect of offending vehicle as on the date of accident.
29. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner, despite being put to notice U/o 12 rule 8 CPC ( Ex. R3W1/2), failed to bring on record any valid permit in respect of the offending vehicle. Since, they failed to file any reply to said notice, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them that there was no valid permit in respect of offending vehicle for State of Delhi as on the date of accident. Moreover, they failed to enter into witness box in order to rebut the plea raised on behalf of insurance company. Even otherwise, verified Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 13 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 copy of permit no. NP/HR/5/122012/12868 dated 06.12.12 in respect of offending vehicle, has been filed alongwith DAR. Same clearly shows that the said permit was issued only on 06.12.12, whereas the accident had occurred on 03.12.12. Hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them that there was no valid permit of the vehicle no. HR55P2809 as on the date of accident. In these circumstances, it is held that there was fundamental breach in terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. respondent no. 2. Hence, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent no. 2. (Reliance placed on decision dated 26.09.2017 in FAO no.7555/2015 in the matter titled as "MS Middle High School and another Vs. Usha and others" by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP no.31406/2017 titled as "MS Middle High School Vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. & others" decided on 22.11.2017). Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
30. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.02.2013 till the date of its realization. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). However, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the registered owner/insured (respondent no. 2) of vehicle bearing no. HR55P2809 after payment of compensation amount, in accordance with law. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
31. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 23.03.2017. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 14 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account no. 90892010156268 with Syndicate Bank, Plot No. 2, Local Shopping Complex, Rohini, having IFSC Code SYNB00009089 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/each having cumulative interest for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth and subject to the following directions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant/petitioner.
(ii) The maturity amount(s) of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the savings bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalized bank near the place of his residence.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant(s) in respect of the savings bank account in which the award amount is to be sent/credited, without permission of the Court. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, the Court shall direct the bank to cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court. The claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
32. During the course of hearing final arguments, counsel for claimant was asked as to whether claimant was entitled to exemption from deduction of Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 15 of 16 MACP No. 5178/16 (Old No. 6C/13); FIR No. 458/12; PS. Mangol Puri DOD: 21.02.2018 TDS or not. Counsel for claimant states at Bar that claimant was not entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS under Income Tax Act.
33. Respondent No. 3, being the insurer, is directed to deposit the award amount alongwith interest with SBI, Rohini Courts Branch, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 25,000/ immediately in the aforementioned Saving Bank Account of petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be also directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner/injured and counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as Annexure A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in open
Court on 21.02.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Purshottam Vs. Mahmood Ali & Ors. Page 16 of 16