Delhi District Court
Nitesh Kumari @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar on 1 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Suit No.: 408/16 (Old No. 289/14)
Unique Case I.D No.: 0240 2C04 1181 2014
Nitesh Kumari @ Neetu
D/o Sh. Shib Singh
R/o D-5, Kumhar Basti Extn.,
Gharoli Village, Delhi - 110096
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad
R/o Village Plawa, Teh. Mundawar,
PS Shahjahanpur, Alwar, Rajasthan
..... Driver
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
Central Workshop I, BB Marg,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009
..... Registered owner
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
RO-1, 8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,
18, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi
..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.11.2014
Date of arguments : 24.02.2018
Date of Judgment : 01.03.2018
JUDGEMENT
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 1 of 20 PLEADINGS:
1. Ms. Nitesh Kumari, (the petitioner), 20 years, born on 20.04.1994, suffered crush injury leading to 'traumatic amputation left foot below ankle level with soft tissue and bony loss' in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at 08.15 a.m. on 01.09.2014 while traveling in a bus belonging to Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bearing registration No. DL 1 PC 9432 (the bus) when the rear door of the said bus suddenly opened in front of wine shop, near PS Kalyanpuri and consequently, the petitioner and her colleague Ms. Bhavna Joshi fell down, and her left leg came under rear wheel of the bus. The petitioner instituted an accident claim case in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) submitted by ASI Shiv Murti Yadav on the basis of the evidence collected during in the investigation of the corresponding criminal case vide FIR No. 802/14 registered under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Kalyanpuri. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) for seeking compensation for the injuries and consequent, permanent disability impleading, inter alia, the driver and the registered owner of the bus as the respondent No. 1 and 2, and the respondent No. 3, it concededly insured the bus against third party risk for the period in question.
2. The respondent No. 1 and 2, in their joint written statement, contended that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. They attributed negligence to the petitioner.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 2 of 20
3. According to the respondent No. 1 and 2, the petitioner had tried to board overcrowded bus and she could not hold the passenger's road and fell down on the road. They stated the bus was insured with the respondent No. 3 for the period in question and the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving license.
4. The respondent No. 3 / insurer, in its written statement, conceded that the bus was insured with it at the relevant time. It also attributed negligence to the petitioner. It pleaded that the petitioner boarded the overloaded bus and when the bus halted at the stop, she did not secure herself by holding the passenger's road. It pleaded that the petitioner did allow herself to fell down as the door was to be opened for boarding and deboarding the passengers. It pleaded that the petitioner fell down while the door was opened and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the respondent No. 1. ISSUES:
5. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 01.09.2014 involving vehicle i.e. DTC Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-9432 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iii) Relief Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 3 of 20 EVIDENCE:
6. The petitioner appeared as PW-1. She filed her evidence by way of Ex.PW1/A. She relied on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) Ex.PW1/1, medical bills in the sum of Rs.
18,134/- Ex.PW1/2, treatment record Ex.PW1/3, academic certificates Ex.PW1/4, photograph of the injury Ex.PW1/5, voter I-card Ex.PW1/6, aadhaar card Ex.PW1/7, disability certificate Ex.PW1/8, Identity card pertaining to B.Ed course issued by Awadh Centre of Education Ex.PW1/9, quotation dated 07.12.2015 and bill in the sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- issued by Ideal Artificial Limb Mark 'A' and 'B' respectively.
7. PW-2 Dr. Brijesh Jain, Junior Specialist (Orthopedics) and member of the disability board, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi proved disability certificate already Ex.PW1/8.
8. PW-3 Kaushal Kishore, Director, International Business, Ideal Artificial Solution relied on authority letter Ex.PW3/1. He proved Invoice No. 714 dated 08.12.2016 in the sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- regarding purchase of left below knee prosthesis already Mark 'B' as Ex.PW3/2. He proved quotation dated 07.12.2015 in the sum of Rs. 3,54,000/- regarding high technology prosthetics already Mark 'A' as Ex.PW3/3. FINAL ARGUMENTS:
9. I have heard arguments of Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate for the petitioner, Sh. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2, and Sh. Surender Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / insurer and examined the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 4 of 20 ISSUE NO. 1
(i) Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 01.09.2014 involving vehicle i.e. DTC Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-9432 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1?
(OPP)
10. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the bus, the petitioner appeared as PW-1. She deposed, on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, sequence of events leading to the accident. She categorically deposed that on 01.09.2014 at 08.15 a.m., when she was traveling in DTC bus bearing registration No. DL 1PC 9432, the driver of the bus opened the rear door of the bus, while the bus was in motion, near wine shop, PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi and resultantly, she fell down from the bus and rear tyre of the bus ran over her left leg.
11. The respondents, in their written statements, did not deny the accident and involvement of the bus. They have not disputed the manner of the accident. The case of the respondents was that the accident was caused due to negligence of the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have not challenged the deposition of the petitioner, on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the bus. Besides making suggestions that the petitioner did not sustain injury in the accident and the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, they have not questioned the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has not cross-examined the petitioner, on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the bus.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 5 of 20
12. The respondent No. 1 is the driver of the bus. He did not appear in the accident box to depose his version of the accident. He was not examined by the respondent No. 3 / insurer to elicit anything to the contrary. The evidence of the petitioner remained unchallenged. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence of the petitioner.
13. The corresponding criminal case was promptly registered at 10.50 a.m. on 01.09.2014 within 2 hours 35 minutes from the time of the accident. The evidence of the petitioner is sync with the statement of Ms. Bhavna Joshi, as recorded in FIR, describing the manner of the accident. The particulars of the respondent No. 1 and the registration number of the bus are mentioned in FIR.
14. From the un-controverted evidence of the petitioner, it is proved that the petitioner was traveling in the bus. It is proved that the rear door of the bus was opened when the bus was in motion. It is proved that the petitioner fell down from the bus in front of wine shop, near PS Kalyanpuri. It is proved that the rear trye of the bus ran over left leg of the petitioner.
15. The respondent No. 1 failed to observe proper precaution to ensure safety of the passengers. He owed a duty of care towards the passengers of the bus. The respondent No. 1 should have ensured that the rear door of the bus was properly closed. He should have ensured that the door must remain closed while the bus was in motion. He should not have set the bus in motion without ensuring that the rear door was properly closed and safety of the passengers.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 6 of 20
16. It is, therefore, proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
17. According to MLC, the petitioner was admitted in casualty of Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi at 08.25 a.m. on 01.09.2014 as a case of road traffic accident (RTA). On examination, she was found to have suffered 'left foot amputated'. Medical board constituted at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi certified permanent disability of the petitioner to the extent of 60% in relation to left lower limb vide disability certificate Ex.PW1/8.
18. Accordingly, it is proved that the petitioner suffered grievous injury and consequent, permanent disablement due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 1.
19. Therefore, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
20. The petitioner suffered grievous injury and 'traumatic amputation left foot below ankle level' due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 1. She is entitled to seek compensation for the injury and permanent disability. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES:
21. The petitioner was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur, Delhi and thereafter, she received treatment as an indoor patient from 01.09.2014 to 18.09.2014 in Safdarjung Hospital vide Discharge summary Ex.PW1/3.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 7 of 20
22. The petitioner, as noted in discharge summary Ex.PW1/3, was found to have suffered 'traumatic amputation left foot below ankle level with soft tissue and bony loss (crush injury)'. She underwent surgical procedures, in Safdarjung Hospital, as under:
1. Bone shortening - fixation by orthopaedic team, revascularization and replantation at trans- torsal level,
2. Amputation on 05.09.2014, and
3. Both bone shortening left leg with stump closure on 09.09.2014.
23. The petitioner was examined by medical board at Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital, Kichripur, Delhi-91. She was found to have suffered 'below knee amputation left leg'. Medical board assessed her permanent disability to the extent of 60% in relation to left lower limb vide certificate Ex.PW1/8.
24. In the case of KAILASH NAGAR versus KARAN SINGH & ORS., MAC APPEAL No. 141/2009 decided on 25.02.2016, the claimant suffered amputation of the right lower limb below knee. The claimant contended that the award under non-pecuniary heads of damages, viz. pain and suffering, physical disfigurement and loss of amenities of life was on the lower side. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each under the said three heads.
25. In the case of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Versus ROOP KUMAR & ORS., MAC.APP. 1105/2016 decided on 31.08.2017, related to the claimant, 23 years, who suffered injuries and amputation of left lower limb in an accident on 14.04.2015.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 8 of 20
26. In the case of Roop Kumar (supra), the insurer questioned the non-pecuniary heads of damages in the total sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that 'it is clear that the amount has been added to the compensation on account of the pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Given the nature of the injuries suffered, and the aftermath which would affect the entire future life of the claimant, the said award cannot be said by any stretch of imagination to be excessive.
27. In the case of RAJBIR SINGH versus NEERU & ORS., MAC. APP. 71/2011 decided on 09.10.2017, the claimant suffered amputation of right lower limb below knee. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, considering the nature of injuries suffered and the permanent disability, awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- each under the heads of loss of enjoyment of life and pain and agony.
28. In the case of SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE. CO. LTD versus AKBAR ALI & ORS., MAC APPEAL No. 167/2011 decided on 10.10.2017, the claimant, 23 years, suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident and it resulted in his left foot through ankle being amputated leaving him permanently disabled. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- each under the heads of pain & suffering and loss of amenities of life.
29. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- each towards pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 9 of 20 LOSS OF INCOME:
30. The petitioner, in affidavit Ex.PW1/A, stated that she was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by imparting tuition. In her petition, she did not claim that she was imparting tuition and earning at the time of the accident. She claimed that she was pursuing B.Ed course. She has not stated the period during which she could not work for gain. Treatment record Ex.PW1/3 would show that she received treatment as an indoor patient in Safdarjung Hospital from 01.09.2014 to 18.09.2014 and thereafter, she visited the said hospital at regular interval till 30.10.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner deserves to be awarded loss of income for three months.
31. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove her income. The claim of the petitioner regarding her income and avocation is not consistent. The petitioner has placed academic certificates Ex.PW1/4. The petitioner did graduation in the academic session 2013-14. Accordingly, the income of the petitioner is notionally assessed as Rs. 11,310/- per month on the benchmark of minimum wages as payable to a graduate at the relevant time.
32. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded (11,310 x 3) = Rs. 33,930 (rounded of) Rs. 34,000/- towards loss of income for three months.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
33. The petitioner proved medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 18,134/- vide medical bills Ex.PW1/2. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 10 of 20 LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:
34. The case of the petitioner is that she was pursuing B.Ed course and she would have earned Rs. 40,000/- being the salary of teacher besides Rs. 20,000/- per month by imparting tuition. She claimed that loss of future income be assessed on Rs. 60,000/- per month. She claimed that functional disability on account of loss of lower limb below knee should be assessed to the extent of 100%. She pressed disability certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by medical board, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichirpur, Delhi in support of her claim.
35. The respondent No. 3 / insurer contended that the functional disability of the petitioner should be assessed as 50%. It contended that the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that she was pursuing B.Ed course. It contended that the petitioner was not employed or working for gain. It contended that the loss of future income can be assessed on the benchmark of minimum wages.
36. In the case of BALBIR SINGH PUNIA versus MANOJ KUMAR & ORS., MAC.APP. 28/2009 decided on 15.02.2016, The claimant was rendered permanently disabled on account of post-traumatic above knee amputation in the left lower limb, the disability having been assessed to the extent of eighty percent (80%) in relation to the said part of the body. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that 'Having regard to (the item at serial No. 21 part II of the first schedule appended to) the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, amputation below results in loss of earning capacity to the extent of fifty percent (50%).
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 11 of 20
37. In the case of UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BHUPENDER SINGH, MAC.APP. 104/2013 decided on 10.05.2016, the claimant suffered amputation of his right leg below knee rendering him permanently disabled. The appellant submitted that the tribunal has wrongly assumed the disability to the extent of 70% as certified by the Medical Board vide certificate dated 31.03.2009 (Ex. PW2/1) to be functional disability in relation to the full body. It is argued that since the claimant has suffered amputation below knee to the extent of one-third of the lower leg, the case would fall under serial No. 21 of part-II of the first schedule appended to the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 wherein the percentage of loss of earning capacity in such cases is specified to the extent of 50%. Honble High Court of Delhi held as under:
There is merit in the contention of the appellant that disability to the extent of 70% assessed in relation to part of body cannot be treated as functional disability affecting the earning capacity. The loss of earning capacity is thus to be assessed as per the Employees' Compensation Act to the extent of 50%.
38. In the case of SUNIL KUMAR versus PYAR MOHD & ORS., MAC.APP. 956/2012 decided on 22.01.2016, the claimant, aged 33 years and working as a swachhata karamchari in Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad, U.P. suffered amputation of right leg below knee. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 40%, as against the disability assessed by the medical authorities (at 80% in relation to the right lower limb). The claimant challenged the assessment of his functional disability. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 12 of 20 It is clear from the evidence on record that what was assessed by the Medical Board in respect of the injuries suffered by the appellant and its effect is disability in relation to the affected limb and not in relation to the whole body or earning capacity. The best parameter to assess the consequent functional disablement or loss of earning capacity is the one available in the first schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is noted that according to items 20 and 21 of part-I of the said first schedule appended to the Workmen's Compensation Act, loss of earning capacity in the case of amputation below knee is stipulated as 50%. In this view of the matter, the assessment of the functional disability at 40% by the Tribunal was deficient. The appellant's contention in this regard is partially correct and it is held that the loss of future earning is to be assessed taking account of 50% functional disability.
39. The petitioner, in the petition, claimed assessment of her income at Rs. 40,000/- per month. She has shown her status as that of B.Ed teacher. However, in her evidence, she stated that she was pursuing B.Ed course from Institute of Vocational Studies, Awadh Centre of Education affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Government of NCT of Delhi. She has not led any evidence to prove that she was pursuing B.Ed course besides placing an identity card issued by Awadh Centre of Education Ex.PW1/9. In any case, the petitioner has not pleaded that she was employed as a teacher. She claimed that she was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from imparting tuition. However, she has not led any evidence to prove her income.
40. In the absence of any evidence regarding avocation and income of the petitioner, the Tribunal is constrained to notionally assessed her income on the benchmark of minimum wages as payable to a graduate as on 01.12.2014 as the petitioner is granted loss of three months w.e.f. 01.09.2014.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 13 of 20
41. The petitioner was 20 years, 5 months and 19 days at the time of the accident. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group 15-20 would apply.
42. The petitioner was below 40 years. The case of the petitioner would fall in the category of 'self-employed'. The element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 40% would have to be added in view of judgment dated 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
43. Loss of future income due to disability is computed as (11,414 x 140/100 x 50/100 x 12 x 18) = Rs.17,25,796.8 (rounded of) Rs. 17,26,000/-.
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS:
44. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability due to the injury sustained by her. It would affect marriage prospect of the petitioner and therefore, she is granted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. COMPENSATION FOR DISFIGUREMENT:
45. The petitioner has suffered amputation below knee left limb. Accordingly, she is granted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for disfigurement / loss of gait. SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE:
46. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that she was prescribed any special diet. She has not led any evidence that she purchased protein rich or nutritious diet. She has also not led any evidence to prove expenses on conveyance. Accordingly, she is granted Rs. 10,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 14 of 20 ATTENDANT CHARGES:
47. The petitioner has claimed attendant charges @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has not led any evidence to prove that any attendant is engaged or expenditure incurred on such account during treatment as indoor patient or thereafter. In view of the nature of the injury and its aftermath, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards attendant charges. ARTIFICIAL LIMB:
48. The petitioner suffered amputation left foot below ankle. She has examined PW-3 Kaushal Kishore, Director- International Business, Ideal Artificial Limbs Solution, B-70, Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi-110024. He proved the bill in the sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- Ex.PW3/2 towards purchase of artificial limb. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- towards charges of artificial limb.
49. PW-3 Kaushal Kishore proved that high technology prosthetics would cost about Rs. 3,54,000/- vide quotation Ex.PW3/3. The petitioner is about 24 years old at present. Accordingly, she is granted charges for installation of two artificial limbs. (See: IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ishlamuddin & Ors, MAC APP. 573/2011 decided on 25.10.2017).
50. PW-3 Kaushal Kishore stated that an amount of Rs. 15,000 to 20,000/- is required for yearly maintenance of artificial limb. The interest accrued upon the amount awarded for two of the artificial limbs would be utilized for yearly maintenance of as well as for meeting the increased in rate of artificial limbs.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 15 of 20
51. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 8,60,000/- towards artificial limb and two replacements.
52. The compensation awarded to the petitioner is computed, as under:
Sl. No Head of compensation Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Loss of income for 3 months Rs. 34,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
5. Loss of future income Rs. 17,26,000/-
6. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,50,000/-
7. Compensation for disfigurement Rs. 1,50,000/-
8. Special diet & conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
9. Attendant charges Rs. 25,000/-
10. Artificial limb Rs. 8,60,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 32,85,000/-
LIABILITY:
53. The respondent No. 1 is the principal tort feasor being driver of the bus. The respondent No. 2 is the registered owner of the bus. The respondent No. 2 is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner being registered owner of the bus. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has neither pleaded nor proved breach of any term and condition of insurance policy and therefore, it is liable to indemnify the liability of the respondent No. 2 / insured and pay compensation to the petitioner.
AWARD
54. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 / insurer shall pay Rs. 25,52,000/- (after adjusting interim award of Rs. 25,000/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition (05.11.2014) till the date of award within one month. Otherwise, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 16 of 20
55. The respondent No. 3 / insurer shall deposit an amount of Rs. 7,08,000/- towards the cost of two replacements of artificial limb within one month and otherwise, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization. MODE OF DISBURSAL:
56. The petitioner was examined under Clause 26 MCTAP. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner / Nitesh Kumari in respect of Savings Bank A/c No. 68011056660 (IFSC:
MAHB0001357) and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass-book of the petitioner to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the pass-book. The petitioner is directed to produce the original pass-book with the necessary endorsement, aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal.
57. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), an amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- out of Rs. 25,52,000/-, will be released into the savings bank account of the petitioner.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 17 of 20
58. Balance amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest will be secured in the following manner:
Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 2,00,000/ 6 months
2. Rs. 2,00,000/ 1 year
3. Rs. 2,00,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 2,00,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 2,00,000/ 30 months
6. Rs. 2,00,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 2,00,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 2,00,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 2,00,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 2,00,000/ 60 months
11. Rs. 2,00,000/ 66 months
12. Rs. 2,00,000/ 72 months
59. Interest component of the award amount be secured in the form of fixed deposit receipt in the name of the petitioner for a period of 7 years with right to draw periodic interest.
60. Fitment charges in the sum of Rs. 7,08,000/- will be released directly to Ideal Artificial Limbs Solution, B-70, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-110024 or any other provider, as per choice of the petitioner. In the meantime, this amount in the form of FDR for 10 years with the right to draw the periodic interest. She may seek transfer of amount for fitment of artificial limb my moving an appropriate application to the concerned company. However, this amount will never be released to the petitioner.
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 18 of 20
61. Manager, UCO Bank, KKD Court, Delhi shall retain the original fixed deposit receipts. A copy of the fixed deposit receipts along with a statement be provided to the petitioner. No loan, advance or security will be permitted in respect of the fixed deposit receipts. There shall be not be premature release of any of fixed deposit receipt without permission or order of the tribunal. On maturity, fixed deposit receipts will be transferred to the savings bank accounts of the petitioners, as informed to bank, by the tribunal.
62. Copy of award be supplied to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 for compliance.
63. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma
Dated: 01st March, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SHARMA
SANJAY Location: East
District,
SHARMA Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.03.01
16:52:00 +0530
Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 19 of 20
Suit No. 408/16
01.03.2018
Present : Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for R1 and R2.
Sh. Surender Singh, Advocate for R3 / Insurance Co.
Vide separate judgment, award is passed. To come up for compliance on 31.03.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/01.03.2018 Suit No.: 408/2016 Nitesh Kumar @ Neetu vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors 20 of 20