Delhi District Court
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 1 Of 23 on 25 September, 2019
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 1 of 23
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT BANSAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
New No. 5068616
UNIQUE ID No. : DLNW010010212015
Sh. Sandeep Jain S/o Sh. Surender Kumar Jain
R/o A1/55B, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi.
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Diwan Singh S/o Vijender Singh
R/o Vill. Bhilwati, Kukthala, Agra, UP
....... Driver /R1
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal s/o Sh. Nand Chand Aggarwal
R/o H. No. D8, Shakti Nagar, Mohali Road, Mathura, UP.
.....Owner/R2.
3. United India Insurance Co Ltd.
Delhi.
... Insurance co/R3
Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.03.2015
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13.09.2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2019
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 1 of23
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 2 of 23
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 16.04.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 17.03.2015
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 17.03.2015
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 17.03.2015
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer
before Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 17.03.2015
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 17.03.2015
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
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 2 of23
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 3 of 23
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 17.03.2015
by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Ms. Neeru Garg,
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 No
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer
of the insurance company fairly computed the
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 not filed.
offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 25.09.2019
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 08.03.2019
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 23.04.2019
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 3 of23
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 4 of 23
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sandeep
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Jain savings bank
IFSC Code a/c No.
2016101042782
with Canra Bank,
Keshavpuram
branch, Delhi
IFSC :
CNRB0002016
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 17.03.2015 with reference to FIR No.380/14 U/s 279/337 IPC PS Subhash Place and subsequent charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC which was filed in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner Sh. Sandeep Jain. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 17.03.2015 treated the same as petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 4 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 5 of 23
2. The facts mentioned in the DAR/file are that on 16.04.2014 at about 11:00 pm, Sh. Sandeep Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'injured'), was going on his Motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAW8365 towards Shakurpur Basti Railway Station from his residence. When he reached at Britania Chowk red light, Delhi, suddenly a Truck bearing registration no. RJ05 GA5195 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came and hit the motorcycle of petitioner. Due to said impact, petitioner along with his motorcycle were crushed under back side wheel of the offending truck and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi by PCR van where his MLC was prepared by the doctors.
3. R1/ Diwan Singh who was the driver and R2/Sh. Ajay Aggarwal owner of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement jointly wherein they stated that no such accident was caused by the offending vehicle. They have stated that injured himself touched with the offending vehicle/truck from left side. They have stated that they are not liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance co. Ltd and that R1 was having a valid driving licence.
4. M/s United India Insurance co/R3 has filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide insurance policy no. 082900311P105431979 in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal/R2 for the period from 28.11.2013 to 27.11.2014 i.e. covering the date of accident 16.04.2014.
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 5 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 6 of 23
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this court order dated 29.08.2017: (1) Whether on 16.04.2014 at about 11:00 pm, at Britania Chowk, Rani Bagh, Delhi, one truck bearing registration no. RJ 05GA5195 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sh. Diwan Singh hit the Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 8SAW8365 and caused injuries to Sandeep Jain? OPP (2). Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3). Relief.
6. Petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi as PW2 in support of his case.
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of his case.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner, ld counsel for R1 and R2 and ld counsel for insurance co/R3. 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.
Petitioner/claimant has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has filed and proved his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 6 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 7 of 23 proved the entire DAR as Ex. PW1/1 (colly).
PW1 deposed that on 16.04.2014 at about 11:00 pm, he was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAW8365 at normal speed and correct portion of the road while observing traffic rules towards Shakurpur Basti Railway Station from his residence. He deposed that when he reached at Britania Chowk red light, Delhi, then suddenly a truck bearing registration no. RJ05GA5195 ( "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came from behind and hit his motorcycle with a great force. He deposed that due to said impact, he along with his motorcycle were crushed under back side of wheels of offending vehicle and he sustained multiple grievous injuries. He deposed that he was taken to Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi by PCR van where his MLC was prepared by the doctors.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of R1 and R2 wherein he deposed that at the time of accident, he was standing at the red light signal. He denied the suggestions that he was not standing at the red light at the time of accident or that the alleged accident was caused due to his sole negligence.
PW1 was cross examined by ld counsel for insurance co/R3 wherein he inter alia denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to his sole negligence. His remaining cross examination by ld counsel for R3 is not germane to the issue in hand.
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 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 7 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 8 of 23 vehicle by R1. PW1 is an injured himself who received injuries in the said accident. He seems to be a reliable and truthful witness.
The copy of criminal case record would show that the case FIR No. 380/14 u/s 279/337 IPC PS Saraswati was registered and that the charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC was also filed against R1/driver of the offending vehicle.
The issue no. 1 is only to be proved by claimant beyond preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond reasonable doubt.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge sheet u/s 279/338 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.
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 motorcycle of petitioner thereby causing injuries to him.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 8 of23
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 9 of 23
9. Issue No. (2)
In view of my findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that due to the accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries on all parts of his body. He deposed that after the accident, he was removed to Maharaja Agrasen hospital where his MLC was prepared by the doctors. He deposed that he was diagnosed with comminuted fracture both bone of right leg and he was operated ORIF with interlocking nail tibia right with nail of 9x33 mm with 2 proximal & 3 distal screws for locking under spinal anesthesia on 17.04.2014 and was discharged on 21.04.2014.
Petitioner has examined Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh Delhi as PW2 who deposed that the petitioner/patient was admitted in the hospital and was suffering from fracture both bone leg of right side. He deposed that patient would require implant removal from the right leg. He deposed that he had given approximate amount for his treatment of implant removal of Rs. 60,000/. He has proved the said document as Ex. PW2/1.
PW2 was cross examined by ld counsel for R1 and R2 wherein he deposed that the written portion of Ex. PW2/1 was in his handwriting. He admitted that the said injury could happen if a person fell down from a motorcycle being driven at a speed of 40 kmph.
PW2 was also cross examined by ld counsel for insurance co/R3 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 9 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 10 of 23 wherein he deposed that the implant could be removed after one year of union of the bone. He deposed that on 18.12.2017 the fractured bones of the patient had fully united and the patient was under his regular follow up even till 18.12.2017. He deposed that he was not aware if that implant removal could be done for free from Govt. hospital. He denied the suggestion that the approximate amount of Rs. 60,000/ as mentioned in Ex. PW2/1 was on a very higher side.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A Medical Expenses.
The petitioner has proved on record medical bills which are the part of DAR as Ex. PW1/1 (colly). The total of the said bills comes to Rs. 1,41,810/. Therefore, Rs. 1,41,810/ are granted to the petitioner under this head.
B. Special Diet and conveyance Petitioner as PW1 has deposed that he had spent Rs.80,000/ on special diet and Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance.
During cross examination as conducted on behalf of insurance co/R3, he deposed that he had not filed any documentary proof regarding special diet, attendant charges and conveyance as mentioned in his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 80,000/ on special diet, Rs. 60,000/ on attendant charges and Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance.
Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on special diet and conveyance nor proved any bill in that regard.
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 10 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 11 of 23 The MLC of petitioner which is the part of DAR Ex PW1/1 (colly) would show that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries. Petitioner has examined Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh Delhi as PW2 who deposed that the petitioner/patient was admitted in the hospital and was suffering from fracture both bone leg of right side.
In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is granted under the said head.
C. Attendant Charges Petitioner as PW1 has deposed that he had spent Rs.60,000/ on attendant charges.
During cross examination as conducted on behalf of insurance co/R3, he deposed that he had not filed any documentary proof regarding special diet, attendant charges and conveyance as mentioned in his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 80,000/ on special diet, Rs. 60,000/ on attendant charges and Rs. 30,000/ on conveyance.
Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on attendant charges nor proved any bill in that regard.
The MLC of petitioner which is the part of DAR as Ex PW1/1 (collY) would show that petitioner suffered grievous injuries. Petitioner has examined Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh Delhi as PW2 who deposed that the petitioner/patient was admitted in the hospital and was suffering from Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 11 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 12 of 23 fracture both bone leg of right side.
Keeping in view of the above said serious injuries and permanent disability, it is evident that the petitioner must have required the services of an attendant. In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is granted under the said head.
D. Pain and Suffering The MLC of petitioner which is the part of DAR as Ex PW1/1 (collY) would show that petitioner suffered grievous injuries. Petitioner has examined Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh Delhi as PW2 who deposed that the petitioner/patient was admitted in the hospital and was suffering from fracture both bone leg of right side. The document Ex. PW2/1 also shows that the petitioner suffered from fracture of both bone leg of right side.
In view of the said discussion, above mentioned injuries and fractures suffered by him and taking the probable period of treatment for about 6 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ is granted under the said head.
E. Loss of Income Petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he was doing private job and was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month at the time of accident.
During cross examination as conducted on behalf of insurance co/R3, he admitted that he had not filed on record any documentary proof regarding his employment and income.
It is evident from the cross examination of PW1 that he has not Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 12 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 13 of 23 properly proved his monthly income or work by any documentary evidence or by examining any other witness.
The copy of degree of Bachelor of Commerce (Honours Course) of petitioner from University of Delhi is on record as part of DAR.
In view of above said discussion and as he has not proved his income, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the petitioner on the basis of minimum wages of a Graduate worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the Minimum Wages Act. The minimum wages of a graduate worker were Rs. 11,310/ per month as on the date of accident.
As per record, the probable period of treatment of petitioner was about 6 month. Therefore, loss of income of Rs.67,860/ (Rs. 11,310/x 6 months) is granted for 6 months.
F. Future Expenses PW2/Dr. Atul Kumar Garg, M.S. Consultant, Maharaja Agrasen hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi has proved one certificate dated 18.12.2017 as Ex. PW2/1 bearing his signature at point X. He deposed that the petitioner would require removal of implant in the right leg which would cost around Rs. 60,000/. The document Ex. PW2/1 also mentions the approximate amount of Rs. 60,000/ for implant removal of the petitioner. Nothing material has appeared in the cross examination of PW2 to discredit his testimony. Even otherwise, PW2 being the treating doctor and a doctor by profession is a specialist on the said aspect.
The said amount of Rs. 60,000/ is thus granted to the petitioner under this head.
In terms of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Arvind Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 13 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 14 of 23 Pathak vs Parshant Kumar, MAC.APP 107/2007, date of decision 21.04.2016, having regard to the fact that the compensation under the head of future expense of removal of implant is being given in advance, there shall be no interest levied on that part of the award for the period the claim petition remained pending before the Tribunal. Thus, in calculating the total compensation, the period of 17.03.2015 to 25.09.2019 shall be excluded for computing the effect of interest against the said head of compensation.
10. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.4,19,670/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 50,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 50,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,41,810/
5. Loss of income Rs. 67,860/
6. Removal of Implant Rs. 60,000/ Total Rs. 4,19,670/ Rounded of to Rs.4,20,000/ ( Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 17.03.2015 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 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 14 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 15 of 23 case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
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.
11. Liability In the case in hand, the United India Insurance co./R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
12. 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., United India Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 4,20,000/ 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 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 15 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 16 of 23 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
13. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 23.04.2019 regarding his savings bank a/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan, cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the 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: 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. 1,00,000/ be released to him in his MACT Claims SB A/c no.2016101042782 with Canra Bank, Keshavpuram 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 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 16 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 17 of 23 24 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 24 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant
(s) through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 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) Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 17 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 18 of 23 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 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 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.
14. Relief As discussed above, United India Insurance co./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 4,20,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 17.03.2015 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 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 18 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 19 of 23 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.
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.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 3 for compliance within the granted time.
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.
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 19 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 20 of 23 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 also recorded on 23.04.2019 wherein he stated that he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
15. 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 BANSAL
AMIT Date:
BANSAL 2019.09.25
17:06:20
+0530
Announced in open court (AMIT BANSAL)
on 25th September 2019 PO MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 20 of23
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 21 of 23
FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 16.04.2014
2. Name of injured Sandeep Jain
3. Age of the injured: 33 years at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Minimum Wages
5. Income of the injured. 11,310/
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 6 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 6 days.
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 Rs. 1,41,810/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 25,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 50,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 67,860/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Rs. 60,000/ towards implant special treatment or aid to the injured Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 21 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 22 of 23 for the rest of his life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/
(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. 4,20,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% (interest not being given on Rs. 60,000/ being future expenses for removal of Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 22 of23 Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 23 of 23 implant )
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 1,45,800/ award
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 5,65,800/
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,00,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 4,65,800/
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. 04.11.2019 (Clause 31) Digitally signed by AMIT AMIT BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2019.09.25 17:06:31 +0530 (AMIT BANSAL) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
25.09.2019
Sandeep Jain vs Diwan Singh Page 23 of23