Delhi District Court
Ms. Anny vs Sh. Girish Chander Joshi (Driver Cum ... on 29 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR - III
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
(CENTRAL):DELHI
Case NO.: 57710/16
Ms. Anny
D/o. Sh. Danial
R/o. H.No. 4669, Gali No. 112, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Girish Chander Joshi (Driver cum Regd. Owner)
S/o. Sh. Daya Kishan Joshi
R/o. H. No. 5401, Gali No. 115, B-Block,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 23/10/2015
Date of reserving order/judgment : 09/01/2019
Date of pronouncement : 29/01/2019
MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 1/19
JUDGMENT CUM AWARD
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP) 1 Date of Accident 22.08.2015 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 25.08.2015 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clasuse2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 23.10.2015 Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause2) 4 Date of filing of the Report under section 23.10.2015 173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 23.10.2015 Information Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause) 6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 23.10.2015 Company (clause11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) 23.10.2015 (Clause11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? ( Clause11) 9 If not state deficiencies in the DAR No 10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (clause4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes on the part of the Investigation Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned
Officer by the Insurance Company
MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 2/19
13 Name , address and contact number of the Not mentioned
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company(Clause 19)
14 Whether the Designated officer of the No
insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?(Clause 21)
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted Yes
the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause22) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency Yes on 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 05.12.2015 offer of the Insurance Company? (Clause
23) 18 Date of Award 29.01.2019 19 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimants(s) examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/ their financial condition? (Clause 26) 21 Whether the photographs, specimen Yes signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured/ legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause26) 22 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Mentioned in the award to the claimant(s) (Clause 28) 23 Next Date of compliance of the 02.03.2019 award(Clause30) MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 3/19
1. This is a claim for compensation arising out of Detailed Accident Report in respect of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the road traffic accident on 22.08.2015 and same is treated as petition u/s 166 MV Act, 1988.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 22.08.2015 at about 7:30 PM, the claimant was crossing the main Burari Road and suddenly, one car bearing registration no. DL1CL6736 Zen Estilo Silver Colour which was being driven by Girish Chander Joshi i.e. R-1 came from Sant Nagar Burari Side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant and due to the accident, she fell down on the road and received injuries. The petitioner has claimed compensation on account of the injuries sustained by her in the vehicular accident.
3. Written statement was filed by Respondent No. 1, wherein he categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also described the contents of the petition as false one.
4. The written statement was filed by respondent no.2 / insurance company admitting therein that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 05.12.2015:-
1. Whether the petitioner Ms. Anny suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 22.08.2015 at about 19:30 hours involving CAR bearing registration No. DL-1CL-6736 driven and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 4/19 compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish her claim, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and exhibited the following documents :-
Ex.PW1/1 - copy of her Aadhar Card, Ex.PW1/2 - original treatment and medical record & Ex.PW1/3 - copy of Mark sheet of B.A. Prog. III (OSR).
In support of her claim, petitioner has also examined Dr. B. Kanhar, Orthopedics, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi as PW-2, who proved the disability certificate Ex.PW2/1.
7. Respondents no. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence in their defence.
8. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties.
My findings on aforesaid issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 19. The present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act and as such, it was the duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
10. The Police has filed the certified copy of criminal record pertaining to the case FIR no. 1037/15 P.S. Burari u/s 279/338 IPC MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 5/19 including charge-sheet etc.
11. To prove this issue, petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that on 22.08.2015 at about 7:30 PM, she was crossing the main Burari Road and suddenly, one car bearing registration no. DL1CL6736 Zen Estilo Silver Colour which was being driven by Girish Chander Joshi i.e. R-1 came from Sant Nagar Burari Side in a rash and negligent manner and hit her and due to the accident, she fell down on the road and received injuries. The cross-examination carried on by the Respondent No. 2 is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioner that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. The Respondent No. 1 did not cross examine the witness.
12. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid CAR bearing registration No. DL-1CL-6736, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of CAR bearing registration No. DL-1CL-6736. The insurance company has not led any evidence on this aspect.
13. Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely Girish Chander Joshi (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 6/19 offending vehicle i.e. CAR bearing registration No. DL-1CL-6736 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of CAR bearing registration No. DL-1CL-6736 by respondent no.1.
14. While determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
15. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 7/19 and not a penal one.
16. This aspect has also been considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors in MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23/07/2012. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held as under:
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
17. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 8/19ISSUE NO.2 : COMPENSATION NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
18. As per the Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/2, the petitioner has suffered fracture BB Leg. The petitioner has not filed any medical bill. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances,I hereby grant a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS :
19. It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed for pain and sufferings in all the cases and it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken to the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have taken heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v/s Jai Kishan , FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-
"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 9/19 some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment."
20. Keeping in view the said guidelines, nature of injuries and duration of treatment, I hereby grant Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards special diet and conveyance.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD
21. The petitioner was stated to be doing private job and was stated to be earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, but no income proof has been filed or proved on record. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment as per medical record, it appears to me that petitioner could not have worked for about six months. In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident was 22.08.2015 on which the Minimum Wages for Graduate Persons were Rs. 11,986/-. Accordingly, I award Rs. 71,916/- (Rs. 11,986/- X 6) towards loss of income.
22. COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY:
PW-2 Dr. B. Kanhar, has proved the disability certificate, Ex. PW2/1. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW2/1, the petitioner has got MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 10/19 22% permanent physical impairment in relation to her right lower limb.
23. It is settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while assessing the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I gain support from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors, reported as 2011 ACJ I in which it was held as under:-
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation ( see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v D. M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 341."
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 11/19 find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry . On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emolument, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 12/1924. After going through the testimony of PW-2 and keeping in view the job of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that permanent disability of 22% in relation to permanent physical impairment in relation to right lower limb shall effect 11% upon her working capacity.
25. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment titled as Pushpa Devi Vs Puran Singh & Ors passed in MAC App. 174/2011 by Hon'ble Justice Sh. R.K.Gauba dated 09/03/2018. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-
4. In above facts and circumstances while the conclusion of the tribunal about the extent of disability to be 40% is correct, error in computation of compensation for loss of income due to disability has crept in due to the assumption that the claimant's income be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It appears, the tribunal has gone by the prescription in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The present case is under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The calculation of loss of income due to disability should have been made with the help of minimum wages of Rs. 2783.90 as payable on the relevant date to an unskilled worker, there being nothing on record to show any educational or trade qualifications of the claimant. It may be added that in computing the loss of future income due to disability, the element of future prospects to the extent of 40% will have to be added. (see judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors.,). Thus, the loss of income due to permanent disability is in future is computed with the multiplier of 16 as (2783.9 X 140/100 X 40/100X12X16) Rs. 2,99,325/, rounded of to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 13/19 has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santos Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sara Verna, a judgment by a coordinate Bench.
It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 14/19The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. vs. Pooja & ors decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
27. As per the copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW1/1, the year of the birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1989. The date of accident was 22.08.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner was around 26 years of age on the date of accident.
28. Accordingly, the petitioner was around 26 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 17, as mentioned in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08 is applicable. In view of the aforementioned judgment Pushpa Devi (supra), the loss of income due to permanent disability in future is computed with the multiplier of 17 as (Rs.11,986X140/100X11/100X12X17) Rs.3,76,552.176/-. Same is rounded off to Rs. 3,76,553/-
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
29. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities of life and enjoyment of life (Reliance placed on MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 15/19 "IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. ARJUN & ORS., MAC APP. NO. 01/2013, DECIDED ON 04.01.2018 BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI).
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: Rs. 5000/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of income during Rs. 71,916/-
treatment period
Compensation on account of
disability: Rs. 3,76,553/-
Compensation on account of
loss of amenities of life and
enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
Total: Rs. 5,93,469/-
RELIEF:
30. I award Rs. 5,93,469/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR I.e. 23.10.2015 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
31. As per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S.Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO 842/2003 @ CM Applns. No. 32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors. Dated 01.05.2018, in order to avoid the money being frittered away, Ninety percent (90%) of the amount awarded to aforementioned MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 16/19 petitioner shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioner can withdraw the interest monthly from the said FDRs. 10% of the award amount alongwith interest be transferred in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner upon furnishing her identification documents and necessary account details.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
32. The Respondent No: 2 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
33. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in MACA 682/05 dated 13.1.2010 Union of India Vs. Nanisiri as well as in MAC. APP No. 422/2009 titled as Sobat Singh Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. & FAO 842/2003 & CM32859/2017, 41125-41127/2017 titled as Raesh Tyagi & Ors.Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. Dated 15/12/2017 have laid certain guidelines which are as under regarding depositing of award amount.
"The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. H S Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322) or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 17/19 Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
34. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its Nodal Officer Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
35. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch for opening the account.
36. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioner. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 18/19 the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 02.03.2019. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2019.01.31 15:19:38 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAKESH KUMAR-III) on this 29th day of January 2019. PO: MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/29.01.2019 MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 19/19 Case NO.: 57710/16 29.01.2019 Present: None.
Vide separate detailed judgment of even date today, I award Rs.5,93,469/- (Rupees Five Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR I.e. 23.10.2015 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP).
The petitioner is further directed to open a bank account, if not opened earlier, near his place of residence and to file the photocopy of his passbook, with due endorsement on the passbook that no cheque book or debit card is issued and file the copy of the same with the Nazir of this court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 02.03.2019.
( Rakesh Kumar - III ) P.O. MACT (Central - 02) Delhi / 29.01.2019 MACT No. 57710/16 Ms. Anny Vs. Girish Chander Joshi & Anr. Page No. 20/19