Delhi District Court
Deepak Kumar S/O Late Sh. Nav Rattan ... vs Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/O Sh. Rajbir Singh on 31 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
(WEST-01):DELHI.
Case NO.: 367/12
Unique ID No. 02401C0289912012
Deepak Kumar s/o Late Sh. Nav Rattan Singh
R/o H No. 237, Budh Vihar Colony, Badarpur,
New Delhi
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Rajbir Singh
R/o VPO-Bamnoli, District Jhajjar,
Bahadurgarh-123507, Haryana (Driver)
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
Through its Depot Manager,
I. P Estate, New Delhi
Also at: Hari Nagar, DTC Depot-3,
New Delhi (owner)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ( Insurer)
......... Respondents
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 1/21
Date of Institution: 22/05/2012 Date of reserving order/judgment: 10/08/2015 Date of pronouncement : 31/08/2015 AWARD
1. This Judgment-cum-Award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioner for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by Sh. Deepak Kumar in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the petition filed by the petitioner is that on 06/01/2012 at about 7.30 p.m near Bus Stand of Route No. 588, Tilak Nagar, Hari Nagar when he was waiting for bus to go his home, then an offending vehicle i.e. DTC Bus bearing No. DL -1PB-3021 which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner hit him. Resultantly, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. In total, the petitioner have claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident.
3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 wherein they categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also termed the contents of the petition to the false one.
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 2/214. The written statement has been filed by respondent no.3/ insurance company wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident but denied the other contents of the petition. The insurance company has also filed the legal offer but the same has not been accepted to the petitioner but the same was not accepted to the petitioner.
5. After hearing the arguments and pleading of the parties, following amended issues were framed for consideration on 19/08/2015.
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Deepak suffered injuries in an accident, due to rash and negligent manner driving of respondent No.1 of vehicle DL -1PB-3021, which took place on 06/01/2012 at about 19.30 hours, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish the claim, the petitioner has examined Dr. Navneet Rustagi, Special Orthopedics, Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, New Delhi who has proved the disability certificate, Ex. PW1/1. The petitioner has also examined Dr. Pawan Vasudeva as PW-2 partly being deferred. The petitioner had not taken any step to call this witness to complete the testimony.
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 3/21Hence, the evidence of this witness could not be read in evidence. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-3.
7. 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 counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 11.Whether the petitioner Sh. Deepak suffered injuries in an accident, due to rash and negligent manner driving of respondent No.1 of vehicle DL
-1PB-3021, which took place on 06/01/2012 at about 19.30 hours, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 OPP.
8. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 166 & 140 M. V. Act and the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1.
9. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-3 who has well explained the mode and manner of accident. He has deposed that when he was waiting for bus for going his home, then an offending vehicle i.e. DTC Bus bearing No. DL -1PB-3021 which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner hit him. Resultantly, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He has proved the treatment record and medical bills vide Ex.PW3/3(colly.). He has also proved the photograph showing the urethral injury vide Ex. PW3/4 and PW3/5 respectively.
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 4/2110. The petitioner has further deposed that his wife has taken care of him due to she lost her unborn child for she was admitted in the hospital. He has placed on record the treatment document of his wife vide Ex. PW3/6 (colly.) He has also proved the DAR vide Ex. PW3/7(colly.).The cross- examination carried on by the respondent No.3 is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioner nor the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident.
11. Dr Navneet Rustagi has proved the disability certificate vide Ex. PW1/1 which suggests that it is a case of Fracture Pelvis with urethral injury. The said disability certificate suggests that petitioner is physical disabled and has 20% Temporary physical disability in relation to his both lower limbs, likely to improve. To be reassessed after one year. Disability due to urethral injury has been assessed by surgeon & patient referred to Safdarjung Hospital for Urethroplasty.
12. In the present case, the police have filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to FIR No. 05/12, Hari Nagar, u/s 279/338 IPC.
13. On the aspect of negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or 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 or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 5/21 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 the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a 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 made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. 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 and not a penal one.
Further the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors had 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 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 6/21 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."
In the light of the law discussed above and after going through all the documents i.e. Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C; FIR; site plan; seizure memo of the DL, Badge and verification ; mechanical inspection report of the vehicle MLC of the injured; seizure memo of RC; fitness and permit filed by the police in DAR; as well as documents filed by the petitioner as a whole it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
The issue No:1 ,therefore, stands decided in favour of the petitioner/petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
14. Nature of injuries and reimbursement of medical bills The discharge summary issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Ex. PW3/2 suggests that petitioner has sustained fracture sup inf pubic rami right side; fracture Ant ineria iliac spine left side with urethral injury. The petitioner has filed two bill summaries to the tune of Rs. 7120/- vide Mark Z1 Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 7/21 and Rs. 1960/- vide mark Z1. The respondents have not disputed the bills. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 9080/- ( Rs. 7120/- + Rs. 1960/-) towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
15. Pain & sufferings & loss of amenities of life It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed 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 judgment 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 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.
© Duration of the treatment."
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 8/21Keeping in view the said guidelines; in view the aforesaid observation made by this court and nature of injuries, I hereby allow Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life.
16. Compensation for conveyance and special diet.
Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, his treatment papers on record and the material placed, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Petitioner is accordingly entitled for sum of Rs. 20,000/- for expenses incurred on conveyance and special diet.
17. Compensation for towards loss of income during treatment period.
The copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner, Ex. PW3/1 suggests his date of birth as 01/01/1990. The date of accident is 06/01/2012. Accordingly, the petitioner was 22 years as on the date of accident.
18. The petitioner is stated to be self employed and stated to be doing the work of White Washer at the time of accident. He was stated to be earning Rs. 8000/- per month at the time of accident, but no income proof has been filed or proved on record. 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 06/01/2012 on which the minimum wages for unskilled were Rs. 6656/- Accordingly, I award Rs. 39,936/- ( Rs. 6656/- x 6) towards loss of income during treatment period.
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 9/2119. Compensation on account of urtheral injury PW-2, Dr Navneet Rustagi has proved the disability certificate vide Ex. PW1/1 which suggests that it is a case of Fracture Pelvis with urethral injury. The said disability certificate suggests that petitioner is physical disabled and has 20% Temporary physical disability in relation to his both lower limbs, likely to improve. To be reassessed after one year. Disability due to urethral injury has been assessed by surgeon & patient referred to Safdarjung Hospital for Urethroplasty. Therefore, it is categorically clear from the aforesaid testimony of PW-1 that the petitioner had sustained injury i.e. " Fracture Pelvis with urethral injury"
20. In order to assess the compensation in this particular case where the injured had sustained 20% Temporary physical disability in relation to his both lower limbs and it is a case of Fracture Pelvis with urethral injury.
So far as the urethral injury is concerned, I am being guided by the judgments herein after discussed.
21. In 'General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation , Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,(1994) 2SCC 176', the Supreme Court held as under:-
" 5.........The determination of the quantum must answer what contemporary society"would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing." The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free society in generous scales'. All this means that the sum awarded must be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards."Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 10/21
Also in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the case of disability of an engineering student. The Supreme Court observed that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position as he was as far as money is concerned. In para '9' of the report, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"9.We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."
22. Further in Niazam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that cases of serious injuries in motor vehicle accident are wrose than the death cases because the victim and his family suffers throughout life. Para '90' of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-viz a family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. I n the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable ad the feeling of hurt , helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enourmous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 11/21 even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity."
23. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011(1) SCC 324 also held as under:
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of th 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."
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 Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 12/21 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."
24. I am also fortified by the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ' Sanjay Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors , FAO No. 445/2000 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal on 03/08/2012, wherein the injured had got almost the similar injury as that of in the present case.
25. In the present case, the injured/ petitioner has also been provided with artificial tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine. Bare perusal of the nature injuries and photographs of petitioner goes to suggest that the injured was operated upon for the purpose of putting of artificial tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine.
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment in Sanjay's case (supra) has held as under:-
"11. The Appellant's photograph on the disability certificate Ex. P-70 and the another photograph on Trial Court record would simply reveal not only immense pain and suffering but humiliation which the Appellant has to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the Hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine. It is established that the Appellant cannot carry out any work whatsoever. The loss of earning capacity in his case would be 100%."Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 13/21
27. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay's case(supra), the facts of which are also almost similar to the present case, it is clear that despite the fact that injured in that case had suffered urethral injuries with disability less than of 40%, the Hon'ble High Court assessed the loss of earning capacity to be as 100%. It was reasoned by the Hon'ble High Court in Sanjay's case(supra) that petitioner has to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine.
28. Likewise taking guidance from the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that in the present case also petitioner will have to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine and he won't be able to carry out any work whatsoever which will affect his fifty percent earning capacity due to urethral injury besides the fact that he got 20% temporary disability with respect to his both lower limbs. Though the petitioner has not got assessed the disability with respect to urethral injury but considering the nature of urethral injury and photographs placed on record, it appears that the said urethral injury shall affect to the extent of 40 % towards his working capacity. Hence, considering the nature of injuries elicited above and facts and circumstances of the present case, I assess the loss of earning capacity as 40% towards his working capacity.
29. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay's case(supra) gave certain observation and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,93,137/- which are detailed Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 14/21 down as under:-
"From the certificate Ex. P-71, it is proved that he was a meritorious student and was participating in extra curricular activities. He had to leave his studies in between in the 8th Standard. It would be difficult to compensate the Appellant for the loss which he has suffered and mental pain and agony which he has undergone and has to live with it throughout his life. In the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:
Sr. Compensation under various Awarded by
No. heads this Court
1. Loss of Earning Capacity (on the Rs. 3,43,137/-
salary of matriculate)(1222/+ 30% (inflation)x 12x18)
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Disfigurement and Loss of Marriage Rs. 1,00,000/-
prospects
5. Special Diet upto the date of Award Rs. 50,000/-
( Rs. 25,000/-) Conveyance upto the date of Award
6. Future Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
7. Future Special Diet Rs. 50,000/-
8. Future Treatment (including Rs. Rs. 1,50,000/-
80,000/- for one surgery as per the estimate given by Apollo Hospital
9. Medical Treatment upto the date of Rs. 50,000/-
the award
Total Rs. 10,93,137/-
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 15/21
30. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear to me that even despite the fact that injured was student of 8 th standard and had suffered permanent disability to the extent of less than 40%, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had taken the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident for assessing compensation and had also give appreciation of 30% towards inflation. Most probably , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had taken the minimum wages as parameters for assessment as the injured is likely to suffer for his entire life even after attaining majority for the loss of income.
31. In the present case, the income of the petitioner has already been assessed to be Rs. 6656/- per month in view of the above discussion.
32. Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 50% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563, per contra Ld. counsel for the insurer objected the same.
33. In the present case in hand, since the injured was about 22 years of age at the time of accident. 50% of income towards the future prospects is required to be added in terms of aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra). Hence after averaging out, the monthly income of injured comes out to be Rs. 9984/-( Rs. 6656/- + 50%).
34. The injured/ petitioner was about 22 years of age as on the date of accident as discussed above for which the relevant multiplier '18' as mentioned Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 16/21 in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08. Therefore, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to be Rs. 8,62,617.6 p. rounded off to Rs. 8,62,618/- =( Rs. 9984/- p. X 12 X 18 x 40/100).
35. Compensation towards loss of enjoyment of matrimonial life Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts and the nature of injuries i.e. Fracture Pelvis with urethral injury suffered by the petitioner, he entitled for sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards enjoyment of matrimonial life.
36. Compensation towards future expenses for treatment for urethral injury & future conveyance.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts and the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, he is entitled for sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment and future conveyance.
37. Compensation towards for inconvenience, hardship discomfort, disappointment , frustration and mental stress of life & loss of unborn child of wife of petitioner during treatment of petitioner.
PW-3 in his testimony has deposed that his wife lost her unborn child during last days of pregnancy while taking care me after the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present facts and petitioner is accordingly entitled for sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
38. During the arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner has claimed Rs. 12 Lacs for implantation of artificial limb, but the petitioner has neither called any doctor to prove this fact nor filed any quotation for artificial limb. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation for artificial limb.Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 17/21
In the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:-
Sr. Compensation under various Awarded by
No. heads this Court
1. Compensation towards medical Rs. 9,080/-
bills
2. Pain and suffering & loss of Rs. 50,000/-
amenities of life
3. Compensation towards Rs 20,000/-
conveyance and
special diet
4. Loss of income during treatment Rs. 39,936/-
period
5. Compensation on account of Rs 8,62,618/-
urethral injury
6. Enjoyment of matrimonial life Rs. 50,000/-
Future expenses for treatment for Rs. 50,000/-
urethral injury & future
7 conveyance
Compensation towards for Rs. 50,000/-
inconvenience, hardship
discomfort, disappointment ,
frustration and mental stress of
life & loss of unborn child of wife
of petitioner during treatment of
8 petitioner.
Total in Rs. Rs.11,31,634/-
Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 18/21
39. RELIEF:
I award Rs. 11,31,634/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Thirty One
Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Four Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e., 22/05/2012(DAR) till the notice under Order XXI Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
40. 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' in order to avoid the money being frittered away, fifty percent(50%) of the amount awarded to 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 quarterly from the said FDRs.
41. The respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days under the intimation to this court. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
42. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 19/21 companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. 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 Mr. Chanra Mohan Ojha, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch,Delhi (Mb: 9412341376 and Tel. No. 011-23987332)
43. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
44. 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 Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
45. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners.
However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 20/21 should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
46. The parties are at liberty to contact in State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. Chanra Mohan Ojha, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch,Delhi (Mb: 9412341376 and Tel. No. 011-23987332) for their convenience.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 31/10/2015 Announced in the open court on 31st August,2015 ( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 31/08/2015 Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 21/21 Suit No. 367/12 19/08/2015 Pre: None The case was fixed for orders today, but it has been observed that in the present case specific issue with regards to rash and negligent aspect of the driving of Respondent No.1 was not framed. The petitioners and their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the insurance company submit that they have no objection if the issue is amended. Considering the facts and circumstances, the issues are re-framed. ISSUES (Re-framed)
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Deepak suffered injuries in an accident, due to rash and negligent manner driving of respondent No.1 of vehicle DL
-1PB-3021, which took place on 06/01/2012 at about 19.30 hours, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3 OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Put up for orders on 31/08/2015.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 19/08/2015 Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 22/21 ..2...
Suit No. 367/12
31/08/2015
Present: None.
Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 31/10/2015, to be fixed by insurance company.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 31/08/2015 Suit No. 367/12 Page No. 23/21