Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh vs Sh. Deepu on 9 May, 2018
MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6127/16 (Old MACP No. 86/16)
1. Smt. Kamlesh,
W/o Sh. Ganeshi Sharma,
R/o H. No. 123, Gali No. 3,
Swami Shradhanand Park,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Deepu,
S/o Sh. Kedarnath,
R/o Kh. No. 751, Gali No. 6,
A Block, Rajiv Nagar,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi (Driver)
2. Sh. Pardeep,
S/o Sh. Hira Lal,
R/o 9/3565/F/6, Jain Mohalla,
Gali No. 5, Dharmpura,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. (Registered Owner)
3. Mohd. Shanu
S/o Mohd. Atik,
R/o H.No. 492/29,
Mallapada Bhujpura,
Aligarh (Possessory Owner) ........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 6126/16 (Old MACP No. 87/16)
1. Sh. Manish,
S/o Sh. Ganeshi Sharma,
(Being minor through his father/natural guardian Sh. Ganeshi Sharma)
R/o H. No. 123, Gali No. 3,
Swami Shradhanand Park,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi. ..........Petitioner
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 1 of 17
MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018
VERSUS
1. Sh. Deepu,
S/o Sh. Kedarnath,
R/o Kh. No. 751, Gali No. 6,
A Block, Rajiv Nagar,
Bhalaswa Dairy, Delhi (Driver)
2. Sh. Pardeep,
S/o Sh. Hira Lal,
R/o 9/3565/F/6, Jain Mohalla,
Gali No. 5, Dharmpura,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. (Registered Owner)
3. Mohd. Shanu
S/o Mohd. Atik,
R/o H.No. 492/29,
Mallapada Bhujpura,
Aligarh (Possessory Owner) ........Respondents
APPEARENCES
Sh. Sumit Gupta, adv for petitioner.
R1 in person.
None for respondents no. 2 & 3.
Vehicle is uninsured.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both these claim
petitions with regard to grievous injuries sustained by Smt. Kamlesh (in MACP
No. 6127/16) and by petitioner/injured Manish (in MACP No. 6126/16) in Motor
Vehicular Accident which occurred on 21.08.2015 at 22:00 hrs at Pusta Road,
near Shani Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, involving Motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL7SAZ9685 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven in rash
and negligent manner by its driver namely Deepu (R1 herein).
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 2 of 17
MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording evidence vide order dated 07.06.2017 and MACP No. 6127/16 titled
as " Kamlesh Vs. Deepu & Ors" was treated as the leading case.
Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf of parties in the leading case for
the purpose of both these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to the DAR petitions in both these cases, on 21.08.15, injured Smt. Kamlesh, alongwith her son namely Manish(injured in MACP No. 6126/16), was going on foot from Nala Road to Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. At about 10:00 pm, when they reached at Pusta Road, near Shani Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, one motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAZ9685 which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and in zigzag manner, came and hit against them. As a result thereof, they both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, where they were medically examined vide MLCs No. 103255/15 and 103254/15 respectively. FIR No. 543/15 U/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Bhalaswa Dairy with regard to the accident in question.
4. It is averred in MACP No. 6127/16 that injured Smt. Kamlesh was doing the work of stitching and was earning Rs.10,000/ per month at the time of accident. It is also averred that the injured has suffered grievous injuries due to the accident in question.
5. It is averred in MACP No. 6126/16 that injured Manish was student of 9th class in Government Boys Sr. Secondary School No. 2, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi at the time of accident. It is also averred that the injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question.
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 3 of 17MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018
7. The respondents no. 1 to 3 although put their appearance on 02.02.2016 when DAR was filed but they failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient opportunities. Ultimately, their defence was struck vide order dated 30.08.16 passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
8. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Smt. Kamlesh (injured in MACP No. 6127/16) and closed PE on 07.06.2017 through their counsel.
9. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone through the material available on record.
10. PW1 Smt. Kamlesh, (who is injured in MACP No. 6127/16) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) on the lines of averments made in the DAR. She deposed that on given date, time and place as mentioned in the DAR, she alongwith her son namely Manish(injured in MACP No. 6126/16), was going on foot from Nala Road to Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. At about 10:00 pm, when they reached at Pusta Road, near Shani Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, one motorcycle bearing no. DL7SAZ9685 which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and in zigzag manner, came and hit against them. As a result thereof, they both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, where they were medically examined vide MLCs No. 103255/15 and 103254/15 respectively. FIR No. 543/15 U/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Bhalaswa Dairy. She has relied upon copy of her future treatment estimate as Ex. PW1/1 and copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/2(colly).
11. The ocular testimony of the aforesaid witness remained unchallanged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents who preferred Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 4 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 not to contest the petition and to stay away from the proceedings. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony, made on oath.
12. Moreover, the ocular testimony of the said witness is also corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record. As already mentioned above, FIR No. 543/15 (supra) was registered at PS. Bhalaswa Dairy with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of chargesheet filed before Ld. Magistrate in State case, have been annexed alongwith DAR (Ex. PW1/2 colly). Copy of said FIR would show that same was registered on the statement of PW1(who is none else but petitioner/injured in MACP No. 5127/16), wherein she has narrated about the same sequence of events which led to the accident in question, as deposed by her during the course of inquiry. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/337 IPC would further show that Investigating Agency also concluded after completion of the investigation that said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid motorcycle by its driver namely Deepu i.e. R1 . Same also points out towards the fact that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by respondent no. 1. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on 22.08.2015 (accident being caused on 21.08.15 at 22:00 hrs). Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay and there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of Motorcycle No. DL7SAZ9685 at the instance of the petitioner.
13. Not only this, the mechanical inspection report dated 26.08.2015 of Motorycle No. DL7SAZ9685 (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly), would show that its headlight and both indicator light were damaged; its front side number plate was bended; its right side body was scratched; its right side cover was dislocated and its ignition key was missing but the switch was in ON Condition. Same also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 to the Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 5 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 aforesaid extent. Moreover, the offending motorcycle is shown to have been seized from the place of accident. This fact gets strengthened from the copy of seizure memo dated 21.08.15 (date of accident also being 21.08.15)(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly).
14. Not only this, the MLCs (which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) of PW1 Smt. Kamlesh and of injured Manish(in MACP No. 6126/16) prepared at BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, would further reveal that they had been removed to said hospital on 21.08.2015 at 10:29 pm with alleged history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA). It is mentioned in their MLCs that they 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 documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
15. Apart from above, the notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) was served upon respondent no. 2/registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. In reply thereto, he mentioned that on 01.07.2015, he had sold the alleged offending vehicle to Mohd. Shanu(respondent no. 3). Thereafter, similar notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act (which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) was served upon respondent no. 3 Mohd. Shanu. In reply thereto, he mentioned that the aforesaid Motorcycle was being driven by Sh. Deepu i.e. respondent no. 1 on 21.08.15 i.e. on the date of accident. Said replies also corroborate the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent that the said motorcycle was in control and possession of respondent no. 1 at the time of accident.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that they had sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on 21.08.2015 at about 10.00 pm Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 6 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 at Pusta Road, near Shani Mandir, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, due to negligent driving of Motorcycle No. DL7SAZ9685 by respondent no. 1.
17. Now, the question arises as to how much amount of compensation which is just and fair, should be awarded in favour of the petitioners. 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.
Compensation in case MACP No. 6127/16(Injured Smt. Kamlesh) MEDICAL EXPENSES
18. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), PW1 Smt. Kamlesh has deposed that she had sustained multiple fractures on her left leg i.e. fracture of tibia and fibula besides other injuries on her face and other parts of the body. Initially, she was removed to BJRM Hospital from the spot, wherefrom she was shifted to ESI Hospital, Rohini, where she remained admitted from 22.08.15 to 11.09.15. During the period of hospitalization in the aforesaid ESI Hospital, operation was performed on her left leg, whereby steel rod and screws were installed therein. She further deposed that after her discharge from the hospital, she was under physiotherapy treatment for three months in ESI Hospital and thereafter, she took physiotherapy treatment for month with private physiotherapy centre at Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. She had incurred a sum of Rs. 25,000/ on her medical treatment. She also deposed that the doctors have advised her for future surgery for the removal of implants and she would be required Rs. 45,000/ towards operation charges. She was not crossexamined by either of the respondents despite grant of opportunity. She has not relied upon any medical bill.
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 7 of 17MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018
19. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that she is required to undergo future treatment for removal of her implant. In order to prove the expenditure on her future treatment, the petitioner has relied on estimate dated 01.03.16 issued by Parnami Orthopedic Hospital & Joint Replacement Centre (Ex. PW1/1), which shows that the total cost of treatment for removal of implant is Rs.45,000/. Although, it would have been prudent on the part of the petitioner/injured to examine the author of Estimate(Ex. PW 1/1) during the course of inquiry but having not done so, she can not be deprived from the amount to be incurred by her for her future treatment in the form of removal of her implant. The respondents have not been able to bring on record anything which may put any question mark on the genuineness or authenticity of the said document. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs. 45,000/ in view of the decision in the matter titled as " Kumar Ritvij Vs. Bhawan Kumar Jha & Ors." passed in MAC. APP. NO. 306/07 decided on 05.02.10 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In the absence of any medical bill, a sum of Rs. 45,000/ only is awarded to her under this head.
Loss of income
20. Injured namely Smt. Kamlesh (PW1) has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that she was doing stitching and knitting work and was earning Rs. 10,000/ p.m. at the time of accident in question. Due to the accident, she could not work for about 6 months. She was not crossexamined by either of the respondents. In other words, the entire testimony of this witness has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents on this aspect.
21. The Discharge Slip (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 Colly) of ESI Hospital, Rohini, Delhi in respect of injured Smt. Kamlesh, would reveal that she remained admitted in the said hospital from 22.08.15 till 11.09.15. She was found to have sustained certain injuries including fracture of tibia and Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 8 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 fibula. Although, the petitioner has failed to file her entire treatment record showing the exact period till which her treatment actually continued but considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, it is presumed that she would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of four months or so.
22. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured fairly conceded that for want of any cogent evidence with regard to exact avocation or monthly income of injured/petitioner, her income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. It may be noted here that the petitioner has failed to file any document concerning her educational qualification. Thus, her loss of income has to be assessed while taking the income of NonMatriculate under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question [Reliance placed on "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi)].
23. The minimum wages of NonMatriculate were Rs. 10,010/ p.m at that time. Thus, a sum of Rs. 40,040/(Rs. 10,010/ x 4) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondents under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
24. 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 Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 9 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 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".
25. Injured herself as PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that she had suffered multiple fractures on her left leg i.e. fracture of tibia and fibula. Said part of her testimony has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents and is also corroborated by her medical treatment record (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly). Thus, she 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. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
26. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered multiple fractures on her left leg i.e. fracture of tibia and fibula due to the accident in question. She remained admitted in the said hospital from 22.08.15 till 11.09.15 and her treatment had continued for a considerable period. Thus, she would not have been able to enjoy general amenities of life during the said period and quality of her life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by her and her continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES
27. Although, the petitioner/injured as PW1 has deposed that she had spent Rs. 20,000/ towards special diet and Rs. 10,000/ towards conveyance but she has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 10 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained multiple injuries including fracture of tibia and fibula due to the accident in question. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/ each for special diet and conveyance charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical bills Rs. 45,000/
2. Loss of income Rs. 40,040/
3. Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/
4. Loss of general amenities and enjoyment Rs. 25,000/ of life
5. Conveyance & special diet Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,70,040/ Rounded off to Rs. 1,70,100/ Compensation in MAC Petition No. 6126/16 MEDICAL EXPENSES
28. In her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A), PW1 Smt. Kamlesh (injured in MACP No. 6127/16)) has deposed that her son Manish had also sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula. Initially, he was removed to BJRM Hospital from the spot, wherefrom he was shifted to ESI Hospital, Rohini, where he remained admitted from 22.08.15 to 25.08.15. She further deposed that she had incurred a sum of Rs. 10,000/ on his medical treatment and physiotherapy. However, she has failed to file any medical bill in this regard. Hence, no amount can be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 11 of 17MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 Loss of Studies/income
29. PW1 deposed that injured Manish was student of 9th class in Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi at the time of accident in question. Due to the accident, he remained absent from school from 22.08.15 to 15.10.15. She further deposed that injured had missed his examination and appeared in reexamination. She also deposed that due to the injuries sustained by her son Manish, his study had been adversely affected. Her testimony remained unchallanged and uncrossed from the side of respondents.
30. During the course of arguments, counsel for injured argued that injured Manish suffered loss of studies as he remained absent from his school from 22.08.15 to 15.10.15 and therefore, appropriate compensation amount may be awarded to him.
31. It stands established on record that injured was a student of 9th class in Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi during academic session 201516 (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) and he could not appear in 1st term exam held from 22.09.15 to 09.10.15 as mentioned in the certificate(which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) issued under the signature of Vice Principal of the aforesaid school. From the ocular testimony of PW1 in this regard, coupled with the documentary evidence referred to above as also the medical treatment record (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/2 colly) of injured Manish showing that he had received medical treatment from ESI Hospital upto 25.08.2015, it can not be overlooked that studies of injured were definitely affected due to the injuries sustained by him on account of accident. The nature of injuries suffered by him, has already been described above, which includes fracture of left tibia and fibula. Thus, a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondents under this head.
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 12 of 17MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 PAIN AND SUFFERING
32. As already mentioned above, injured Manish had sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula due to the accident in question. He was of tender age of 14 years at the time of accident. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by injured and his medical treatment record referred to above, he would have definitely suffered great mental shock, pain and agony on account of the injuries sustained by him due to the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and after considering the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to him.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
33. Ld. counsel of petitioner argued that petitioner is entitled to compensation under this head as he had sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula. He was deprived from enjoying general amenities of life. During the period, he remained hospitalized and even afterwards, he would have been deprived of many general amenities till his treatment would have continued. During the period of treatment, he would not have been able to participate in various activities like dance, play, singing, etc. He would not have also been able to play outdoor games during the said period. In view of period of hospitalization and the medical treatment record of petitioner, I award notional amount of Rs. 25,000/ towards loss of amenities of life to him.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
34. PW1 has deposed that she had spent Rs. 20,000/ on special diet and Rs. 5,000/ on conveyance due to injuries suffered by her son Manish. However, no definite evidence whatsoever has been led to prove the same. Thus, it would involve guess work on the part of Tribunal to award notional Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 13 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 amount under this head since petitioner would have definitely taken rich protein diet for his speedy recovery. He would have also used the facility of conveyance for visiting the hospital from time to time as OPD patient during the period of his treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 5,000/ on account of special diet and Rs. 5,000/ on account of conveyance.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of studies Rs. 50,000/
2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/
3. Loss of general amenities and enjoyment Rs. 25,000/ of life
4. Conveyance & special diet Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,35,000/
35. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 1 being principal tortfeasor and respondent no. 2 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle and thus, vicariously liable for the acts of principal tort feasor, are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioners. There is no iota of evidence on record to show as to when the offending vehicle was sold by respondent no.2 to respondent no. 3. Even otherwise, the vehicle is not shown to have been transferred in the name of respondent no. 3 in the record of Transport Authority. Hence, respondents no. 1 & 2 alone are held liable to pay the compensation amount.
36. In view of my aforesaid findings, I award a sum of Rs. 1,70,100/ in MAC Petition No. 6127/16 and a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/ in MAC Petition No. 6126/16, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petitions i.e. 02.02.16 in favour of petitioner(s) and against the Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 14 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 respondents no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
37. Statements of petitioner/injured Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Ganeshi Sharma(father/natural guardian of minor injured Manish in MACP No. 6126/16) in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP were recorded on 31.10.17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that a sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account, if any with SBI, Rohini Court Branch and in case, there is no such account opened by claimant with the said bank and branch then, the concerned branch Manager shall release the said amount through her saving bank account no. 33288100009243 with Bank of Baroda, Jahangir Puri Branch, Delhi and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
38. However, in MAC Petition No. 6126/16, the entire awarded amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDR till attaining the age of majority. However, the monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by transferring the same directly in his saving bank account no. 91662210004561 with Syndicate Bank, Model Town Branch, Delhi through his natural guardian as per rules for being used for his day to day requirements and for his welfare.
39. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions: Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 15 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 (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 claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) The maturity amount(s) of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the savings bank accounts of the claimant(s) in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant(s) in respect of the savings bank accounts 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 bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(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 accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
40. The respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amount as mentioned above in the aforesaid saving bank accounts of petitioners mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to the claimants as also to the respondents no. 1 & 2 for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of both the petitioners, 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 AnnexureA. Copy of order be Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 16 of 17 MACP Nos. 6127/16 & 6126/16, FIR No. 543/15; PS. Bhalaswa Dairy DOD: 09.05.2018 also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 6126/16, as per the rules.
Announced in the open
Court on 09.05.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Kamlesh & Manish Vs. Deepu & Ors. Page 17 of 17