Delhi District Court
Pankaj Katyal vs Naveen Gupta Page 1 Of 22 on 22 September, 2020
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 4949116
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010002992014
Sh. Pankaj Katyal S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Katyal,
R/o A7, 2nd Floor Back Side, Rana Partap Bagh,
Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Naveen Gupta S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta,
R/o H.No. 3, Suvidha Kunj,
Pitampura, Delhi.
....... Driver /R1
2. Smt. Sunita Rani W/o Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta,
R/o H.No. 3, Suvidha Kunj,
Pitampura, Delhi.
....... Owner/R2
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
4th Floor, Chintamani Avenue,
Off Western Express Highway,
Near Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon (East),
Mumbai400063.
... Insurance co/R3
Respondents
Digitally
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.12.2014
signed by
AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.09.2020
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22
16:21:39
+0530
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2020
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 1 of22
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 2 of 22
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH
TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED
07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 10.10.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 01.12.2014
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 01.12.2014
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not mentioned in
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate the DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 01.12.2014
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer
before Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 01.12.2014
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 01.12.2014
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes.
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
AMIT
BANSAL
BANSAL
Date:
2020.09.22
whether any action/direction warranted?
16:21:50
+0530
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 2 of22
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 3 of 22
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 01.12.2014
by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Sh. M. Awasthi,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No.
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Legal offer was filed,
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer however it was not
of the insurance company fairly computed the proper.
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the Legal offer was
offer of the Insurance Company . rejected by the
petitioner on
17.02.2016.
18. Date of the Award 22.09.2020
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 13.03.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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 passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 20.02.2020
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22
16:21:59
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
+0530
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 3 of22
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 4 of 22
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sh. Pankaj
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Katyal savings bank
IFSC Code a/c No. 6847969241
with Indian Bank,
Rana Pratap Bagh
Branch, Delhi
IFSC : IDIB000R011
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427,
Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is SBIN0010323, SBI,
to be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi.
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 01.12.2014 with reference to FIR No.775/14 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Maurya Enclave and subsequent charge sheet u/s 279/337 IPC which was filed in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner Sh. Pankaj Katyal in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal vide order dated 01.12.2014 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Digitally Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
signed by
AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22
16:22:07
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 10.10.2014 at +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 4 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 5 of 22 about 3:30 pm, Sh. Pankaj Katyal (hereinafter referred to as 'injured') was going to his home via Pitampura, Delhi by his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SAL3850 make Yamaha of silver colour from the office of SubRegistrar, Pitampura, Delhi. On that day, when he reached at AP Block, Dustbin Bus Stop Opposite Vatika Muni Maya Ram Road, Pitampura, Delhi, then suddenly a vehicle/car bearing registration No. DL10CB1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver/R1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side road, suddenly turned the offending vehicle, hit the motorcycle of the injured/petitioner and ran away. Due to said impact, petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The petitioner was removed to Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital (Charitable), KDBlock, Pitampura, Delhi110088 by a passerby, where his MLC was prepared.
3. R1/Sh. Naveen Gupta who was the driver of the offending vehicle and R2/Smt. Sunita Rani who was the owner of the offending vehicle have filed their joint written statement wherein it was denied that the accident in question was caused due to sole negligence of R1/driver of the offending vehicle. R1 & R2 submitted that the petitioner was himself negligent on his part as he was driving the motorcycle at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and was zigzagging the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and law. They further submitted that the petitioner was himself negligent and responsible for the accident and was putting blame upon them only to extort money. They further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid Digitally signed by driving licence. They further submitted that at the time of accident, the AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:22:13 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 5 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 6 of 22 offending vehicle was fully insured and covered under the insurance with the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. under Policy No. 1305742311000999 which was valid upto 29.06.2015.
3.1 The record would show that R1 & R2 were ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 23.04.2019.
4. R3/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed its written statement/legal offer wherein it was admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 1305742311000999 w.e.f 30.06.2014 to 29.06.2015.i.e. covering the date of accident 10.10.2014. It also filed a legal offer of Rs. 10,000/ plus medical bills (subject to verification).
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court vide order dated 17.02.2016: (1) Whether on 10.10.14 at about 3:30 pm, at AP Block, Dustbin Bus Stop Opposite Vatika Muni Maya Ram Road, Pitampura, Delhi, one white colour car bearing registration No. DL10CB1977, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Naveen Gupta/R1 hit the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SAL3850 and caused injuries to petitioner/Pankaj Katyal? OPP (2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(3). Relief.
6. Petitioner has examined himself as PW1. No other witness has been examined by him in support of his case.
Digitally 6.1 The record would show that no respondent including the insurance signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:22:21 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 6 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 7 of 22 co./R3 has examined any witness in support of their case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the insurance co./R3 through video conferencing during the Covid19 situation. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 The onus to prove this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is upon the petitioner.
8.1 Petitioner/claimant has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved the DAR as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
8.2 PW1/petitioner deposed that on 10.10.2014 at about 3:30 pm he was going to his home via Pitampura, Delhi by his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SAL3850 make Yamaha of silver colour from the office of SubRegistrar, Pitampura, Delhi. He deposed that on that day, when he reached at AP Block, Kura Ghar, Muni Maya Ram Road, Pitampura, Delhi, then suddenly a vehicle/car bearing registration No. DL10CB1977 (offending vehicle) (wrongly typed in the said affidavit as DL10CB1877, however while tendering said affidavit in evidence PW1 deposed that it was typographical error and the correct registration number of the offending vehicle was DL10CB1977) which was being driven by its driver in a negligent manner came from the opposite side of the road, the Digitally signed by AMIT said driver suddenly turned it, hit his motorcycle and ran away. He AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:22:28 deposed that the said accident was caused due to the negligence on the +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 7 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 8 of 22 part of R1. He deposed that he was removed to Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital (Charitable), KDBlock, Pitampura, Delhi110088 by a passerby, where his MLC was prepared.
8.3 PW1/petitioner was not crossexamined by R1 & R2 and their cross examination was treated as nil, opportunity given. R1 & R2 shall thus be deemed to admit the abovesaid testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused by R1 at the above mentioned date, time and place while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 8.4 PW1 was cross examined on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3. During crossexamination, PW1/petitioner deposed that he was having a driving licence (D.L) at the time of accident, but the same was lost and therefore he got issued a new D.L which was proved as Ex.PW1/R3X1. He deposed that he was on the left side of the road at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was taking a right turn and hit its bonnet on his right knee. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence or that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. He deposed that he remained in the hospital for two days only at the time of accident and that he did not suffer any fracture in the said accident.
8.5 Nothing material has appeared in the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his above said testimony which would show that the case accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. PW1 is an injured himself who received injuries in the said accident. He seems to be a reliable and truthful witness.
AMIT BANSAL Digitally signed 8.6 The copy of criminal case record would show that the corresponding by AMIT BANSAL Date: 2020.09.22 16:22:36 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 8 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 9 of 22 charge sheet u/s 279/337 IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
8.7 The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt.
8.8 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet u/s 279/337 IPC against R1 can also be relied upon to show that the case accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1 while driving the offending vehicle.
8.9 In the said circumstances, testimony of PW1 and other record including charge sheet against R1, it has been clearly proved beyond preponderance of probabilities that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place and in the above said manner by the rash and negligent driving of R1 by which he drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the abovesaid motorcycle of the petitioner thereby causing injuries to him.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
9. Issue No. (2) In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
9.1 Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that due to the accident, he received grievous injuries. The Digitally signed by AMIT MLC of the petitioner from Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:22:44 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 9 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 10 of 22 which is part of DAR Ex.PW1/1 (colly) would however show that he suffered only simple injuries. The copy of the Xray right knee AP & Lat. view of the petitioner from the said hospital would also show that he was not having any obvious bony injury.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation:
10. Medical Expenses.
The petitioner has not proved on record any medical bill. In facts, no amount is being granted under the said head.
11. Special Diet and conveyance 11.1 Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on special diet and conveyance nor proved any bill in that regard. As per MLC of Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, the petitioner received only simple injuries and there was no obvious bony injury in his Xray of right knee. As per the said MLC, the petitioner had a history of road side accident (RSA) and came in the casualty of said hospital with a big CLW over right knee joint with actual bleeding. 11.2 In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 10 days, a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/ is granted under the said head.
12. Attendant Charges 12.1 PW1/petitioner deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that after his discharge from the hospital, he kept one servant for his day to day activities and had paid him a salary of Rs. 15,000/ for one month for the care given by him.
12.1.1 PW1 deposed in his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22
16:22:50
+0530
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 10 of22
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 11 of 22
R3/insurance co. that he had not placed on record any document to show that he had kept an attendant or that he had paid him salary of Rs. 15,000/ for one month. He denied the suggestion that he did not keep any such attendant or that he did not pay him any such salary of Rs. 15,000/ per month.
12.2 Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on attendant charges nor proved any bill in that regard. As per MLC of Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, the petitioner received only simple injuries and there was no obvious bony injury in his Xray of right knee. As per the said MLC, the petitioner had a history of road side accident (RSA) and came in the casualty of said hospital with a big CLW over right knee joint with actual bleeding. 12.3 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 10 days, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000/ is granted under the said head.
13. Pain and Suffering 13.1 As per MLC of Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, the petitioner received only simple injuries and there was no obvious bony injury in his Xray of right knee. As per the said MLC, the petitioner had a history of road side accident (RSA) and came in the casualty of said hospital with a big CLW over right knee joint with actual bleeding.
In view of the said fact and taking the probable period of treatment Digitally signed by for about 10 days, a lump sum amount of Rs. 4,000/ is granted under the AMIT AMIT BANSAL said head.
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:23:02 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 11 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 12 of 22
14. Loss of Income 14.1 Petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he was doing the work of construction and was earning about Rs. 40,000/ per month. He further deposed that he was aged about 27 years on the date of accident and that the said accident had adversely affected his future prospects.
14.2 PW1 during his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance co. has deposed that he was 8th pass but he had not placed on record any document to show that he was 8th pass. PW1 deposed that he had earlier not placed on record any document to show that he was in business of construction or that he was earning Rs. 40,000/ per month, however he placed on record copies of his ITR's for the assessment year 20122013, 20132014 & 20142015 which were Mark A, Mark B & Mark C respectively. He deposed that he remained in the hospital for two days only at the time of accident and did not suffer any fracture. He denied the suggestions that he was not earning Rs. 40,000/ per month at the time of accident or that the copy of his ITR's were false and fabricated. 14.3 It is evident from the cross examination of PW1 that he has not properly proved his work by any documentary evidence or by examining any other witness. The petitioner has however proved his ITR for the assessment year 20142015 as Mark C. The said ITR would show that his profit and gains from business and profession was Rs. 3,12,480/. The average daily income of the petitioner thus comes to about Rs. 856/ (after Digitally signed by rounding of) {Rs. 3,12,480/ divided by 365 days}. The probable period of AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
treatment of petitioner has been taken as about 10 days. Therefore, loss of 2020.09.22 16:23:11 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 12 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 13 of 22 income of Rs.3650/ (Rs. 365/x 10 days) is granted for 10 days.
15. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.13,650/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 4,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 5,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 3,000/
4. Medical Expenses Nil.
5. Loss of income Rs. 3650/ Total Rs. 15,650/ Rounded of to Rs.16,000/ ( Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) 15.1 The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 01.12.2014 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
15.2 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.
16. Liability Digitally 16.1 In the case in hand, the Reliance General Insurance Company signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 Ltd./R3 has not been able to show that R1 who was the driver of the 16:23:18 +0530 offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 13 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 14 of 22 offending vehicle or that the permit of the offending vehicle was not valid. As per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance co./R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law. It is also pertinent to note that R3 has also filed a legal offer in this matter and has no legal defence. 16.2 Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 16,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. R3 further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
17. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 20.02.2020 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the Date:
2020.09.22 16:23:25 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 14 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 15 of 22 petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:
17.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statement of the petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount of Rs. 2,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.6847969241 with Indian Bank, Rana Pratap Bagh Branch, Delhi as per rules i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in 6 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 6 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
17.2 The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant Digitally signed by AMIT
(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated Date:
2020.09.22 16:23:33 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 15 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 16 of 22 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003.
However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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 Digitallybefore the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit signed by AMIT AMIT card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:23:40 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 16 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 17 of 22 issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement 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 pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
18. Relief 18.1 As discussed above, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 16,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 01.12.2014 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
18.2 R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
Digitally 18.3 A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: compliance within the granted time. 2020.09.22 16:23:47 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 17 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 18 of 22 18.4 Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022 22741336/9414048606) {other detailsPersonal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard. 18.5 A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was Digitally also recorded on 20.02.2020 wherein he stated that he was entitled to signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date: exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G 2020.09.22 16:23:54 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 18 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 19 of 22 to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
19. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22
16:24:10 +0530
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 22nd September 2020 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 19 of22
Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 20 of 22
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 10.10.2014
2. Name of injured: Sh. Pankaj Katyal
3. Age of the injured: About 27 years at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Private work
5. Income of the injured: About Rs. 856/ per day.
6. Nature of injury: Simple
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 10 days.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not available on record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 2,500/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 2,500/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 3,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 3,650/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
special treatment or aid to the injured AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:24:18 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 20 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 21 of 22 for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 4,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X %Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 16,000/ (after rounding of)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% Digitally signed by
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 8,364/ AMIT AMIT award BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:24:24 +0530 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 21 of22 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 22 of 22
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 24,364/
18. Award amount released Rs. 2,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 22,364/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 29.10.2020 (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2020.09.22 16:24:30 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
22.09.2020 Pankaj Katyal Vs Naveen Gupta Page 22 of22