Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Singh vs Sh. Sohan Singh on 23 November, 2017
MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5197/16 (Old MACP No. 287/07)
1. Sh. Ram Singh,
S/o Sh. Ranjit
(Deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 10.01.2011 in view of
his death on 26.11.2010)
2. Smt. Channo Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Ram Singh,
Both R/o 1018, Village Pooth Khurd,
New Delhi. ..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sohan Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Nehar,
R/o U110, Vijay Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Sh. K.D. Sharma,
R/o H.No. 301, Gali No. 19,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
ROI, 88, Janpath,
New Delhi. .........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 5236/16 (Old MACP No. 343/07)
1. Sh. Raghvender Kumar
S/o Sh. Puran Mal,
R/o H.No. 197, Village Bawana,
Pana Dulan, Delhi39. ..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 28
MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
1. Sh. Sohan Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Nehar,
R/o U110, Vijay Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar,
S/o Sh. K.D. Sharma,
R/o H.No. 301, Gali No. 19,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
ROI, 88, Janpath,
New Delhi. .........Respondents
Petitions 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 the claim petitions
with regard to fatal injuries sustained by Hari Prakash (MACP No. 5197/16)
and grievous injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Raghvender Kumar
(MACP No. 5236/16) in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on
03.03.2007 at about 5:55 pm in between Daryapur and Bawana Police Station,
Delhi, involving RTV bearing no. DL1VA2660 (alleged offending vehicle)
being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver/respondent no. 1.
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording evidence, vide order dated 30.05.2014 passed by my Ld
predecessor and MACP No. 5197/16 titled as " Channo Devi & Ors. Vs.
Sohan Singh & Ors" was treated as leading case. Accordingly, the evidence
was led on behalf of both the sides in the leading case for the purpose of both
the matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to the claim petitions preferred by petitioners in both the Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 cases, on 03.03.2007, Hari Prakash (since expired) alongwith Sh. Raghvender Kumar were going on motorcycle no. DL8SAA6608 which was being driven by Raghvender Kumar(as averred in MACP No. 5236/16) at normal speed while following the traffic rules and they were proceeding towards Bawana from Auchandi. When they reached near PS. Bawana, meanwhile, one RTV bearing registration no. DL1VA2860 being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner, without any proper look out and without blowing any horn, came from Bawana side and hit against their motorcycle, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. Hari Prakash died at the spot and Raghvender Kumar was immediately taken to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Delhi, where he was examined vide MLC No. 245/07. FIR No. 119/07 U/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. Bawana with regard to the accident in question.
4. It is averred in MACP No. 5197/16 that Hari Prakash was bachelor aged about 27 years old; was working as a driver in private sector and was earning Rs. 7,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioner no. 1 is his mother and petitioners no. 2 & 3 are his sister and brother respectively. The petitioners have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum against all the respondents on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is averred in MACP No. 5236/16 that injured Raghvender Kumar was 22 years old; was self employed as driver and was earning Rs. 6,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. He had sustained head injury with fracture femur(RT), shaft fracture in shoulder (RT) and fracture tibia on other parts of his body. After the accident, he was immediately taken to M.V. Hospital and thereafter, he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital. He remained hospitalized there from 04.03.07 to 27.03.07 and was treated for head injury management conservatively and interlocking nailing was done for Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 fracture femur and closed interlock nailing of tibia was also done. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/ (under pecuniary as well as non pecuniary heads) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum against the respondents by claiming that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.
6. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed separate but almost identical WS in both the claim petitions, wherein they have claimed that they are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners as the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident as per claim petitions, is DL1VA2660 but the vehicle of respondent no. 2 is bearing registration no. DL1VA2860 which was insured with respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 272201/31/20007/2616 valid upto 24.09.06 to 23.09.07. On merits, they have denied the averments made in the claim petitions. They have denied the claim for compensation raised by the petitioners and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
7. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has filed separate but identical written statements in both the claim petitions claiming therein that vehicle no. DL1VA2660 is not insured with it. It has further claimed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of vehicle no. DL8SA6608. On merits, it has not disputed that Vehicle No. DL1VA 2860 was insured with it in the name of Sh. Pradeep Kumar (R2). It is averred that the said vehicle was previously insured in the name of Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Jeet Ram for the period from 24.09.06 to 23.09.07 but later on, the name of insured was changed to Sh. Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Dev Sharma(R2) vide endorsement no. 272201/31/2007/2616/01 effective from 16.07 hrs on 16.10.06 to 23.09.2007. The averments made in the claim petitions have been denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petitions.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
8. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5197/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.03.2009 :
1) Whether the deceased Hari Prakash received fatal injuries in the road side accident caused on 03.03.2007, at about 5.55 p.m at Dariyapur within the jurisdiction of PS. Bawana, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle No. DL1VA2660? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
9. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 5236/16 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.03.2009 :
1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road side accident caused on 03.03.2007, at about 5.55 p.m at Dariyapur within the jurisdiction of PS. Bawana, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle No. DL1VA2660?
OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
10. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Channo Devi(mother of deceased Hari Prakash in MACP No. 5197/16), PW2 Sh. Raghvender Kumar (injured in MACP No. 5236/16), PW3 Dr. Yudhvir Singh, CMO, M.V. Hospital, PW4 Dr. G.C. Verma, Specialist Orthopedic, BJRM Hospital and PW5 Dr. Pradeep Dua, Sr. Medical Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 Officer, Jaipur Golden Hospital. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness towards their respective RE and closed their respective RE through their counsels on 14.07.17.
11. It may be noted here that in both the claim petitions, petitioners moved amendment application u/o 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC on 10.01.2011, whereby they sought to amend FIR number of the criminal case as 117/07 instead of 119/07 and the registration number of the offending vehicle as DL1VA2860 instead of DL1VA2660 as originally mentioned in the claim petitions. The amendment application was opposed by the respondents but same was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2011 passed by my Ld. Predecessor. Accordingly, the amended claim petition was taken on record and all the three respondents filed their amended written statements, taking similar pleas as raised by them in the written statements previously filed on record.
12. It may also be mentioned here that petitioner no. 1 namely Sh. Ram Singh (in MACP No. 5197/16) died during pendency of inquiry on 26.11.2010 and his name was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 10.01.2011 in view of application u/s. 151 CPC moved in this regard.
13. It is also pertinent to note here that driver/respondent no. 1 namely Sohan Singh had expired during the course of inquiry and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 07.02.14 passed by my Ld. Predecessor.
14. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to bring on record the fact that after amendment of the claim petitions, the issues framed previously, could not be reframed as the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle mentioned therein, is DL1VA2660. Otherwise, both the sides were clear in their mind throughout the proceedings that the registration number of Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 the alleged offending vehicle as per amended claim petitions is DL1VA2860. Hence, it is not only appropriate but necessary to reframe the issues before passing the award. This fact was taken note of while hearing final arguments and both the sides, in all fairness, agreed that since they have already led their respective evidence on the basis of amended pleadings available on record, there is no objection in case the issues are reframed by Claims Tribunal while passing the award. Accordingly, the issues framed in both the claim petitions are reframed as under:
15. From pleading of the parties, the following issues are reframed in MACP No. 5197/16:
1) Whether deceased Hari Prakash received fatal injuries in the road side accident caused on 03.03.2007, at about 5.55 p.m at Dariyapur within the jurisdiction of PS. Bawana, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle No. DL1VA2860? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
16. From pleading of the parties, the following issues are reframed in MACP No. 5236/16:
1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road side accident caused on 03.03.2007, at about 5.55 p.m at Dariyapur within the jurisdiction of PS. Bawana, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of R1/driver of offending vehicle No. DL1VA2860?
OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what an extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 28
MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
17. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
18. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Raghmender Kumar is relevant. According to the claim set up by the petitioners, this witness was driving the motorcycle no. DL8SAA6608 and deceased Hari Prakash was sitting as pillion rider on it. He is also claimed to have sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A, he has deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petitions to the effect that on 03.03.2007 at about 5:55 pm, he alongwith Hari Prakash was going to their house by motorcycle no. DL8SAA6608. He was pillion rider and Hari Prakash was driving the said motorcycle at normal speed, vigilantly, on the correct side of road while following the traffic rules and was proceeding towards Bawana from Auchandi. When they reached near PS. Bawana, one RTV bearing registration no. DL 1VA2860 being driven by its driver at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner and without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts and without blowing any horn and while coming from Bawana side after changing its driving lane, came to the wrong side and hit against their motorcycle with great force, due to which they fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was immediately taken to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Delhi by PCR Van, where the doctor prepared his MLC bearing no. 245/07. Thereafter, he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he remained hospitalized from 04.03.07 to 27.03.07. He was treated for head injury management conservatively and interlocking nailing was done for fracture femur and closed interlock nailing of tibia was also done. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of RTV. FIR No. 117/07 was registered at PS. Bawana with regard to Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 said accident. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents
1. Medical treatment record Ex PW2/1(138 pages)
2. Medical bills Ex. PW2/2(157 pages)
3. Disability Certificate Ex. PW2/3
4. Copy of his Voter I card Ex. PW2/4
19. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police. He admitted that motorcycle no. DL8SAA6608 was being driven by Hari Prakash and he was sitting as pillion rider. He further deposed that the accident was not head on collision. He denied the suggestion that at the time of recording of his statement by the police, he had stated that accident was head on collision. No crossexamination whatsoever has been conducted on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2 despite grant of opportunity.
20. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 Sh. Raghmender Kumar that respondents more particularly insurance company, could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving RTV No. DL1VA2860 in rash and negligent manner.
21. Not only this, respondent no. 1/driver of the alleged offending vehicle, preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of enquiry. He was the other material witness apart from PW2 Raghmender Kumar, who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. RTV bearing registration no. DL1VA2860.
22. It is also pertinent to note that FIR no. 117/07 u/s 279/337/304A IPC (which is part of criminal case record) was registered at PS. Bawana with regard to accident in question on 03.03.2007. Thus, FIR in question was promptly lodged with regard to the accident in question on same day of the accident which had occurred on 03.03.2007. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Sohan Singh (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A 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 offending RTV No. DL1VA2860 by him. PW2 Sh. Raghmender is also cited as prosecution witness, as per list of witnesses filed alongwith the charge sheet. Same would also point out towards the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
23. There is no substance in the argument raised on behalf of respondents that the FIR number mentioned in claim petition bearing MACP No. 5197/16 is different from the FIR number mentioned in connected claim petition bearing MACP No. 5236/16 or that registration number of the offending vehicle as mentioned in the FIR No. 117/07 (supra) is different from the registration number of the offending vehicle mentioned in the amended claim petitions. Counsel for insurance company made feeble attempt to displace the case of petitioners by referring to the relevant portions of the chargesheet filed in the criminal case and by submitting that the registration number of the offending RTV vehicle as mentioned therein is DL1VA2866 at several places, which is different from DL1VA2860. The said argument is totally misplaced inasmuchas, the registration number as mentioned in the chargesheet is DL1VA2860 and not DL1VA2866 as claimed. It is Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 important to note that the chargesheet is handwritten and the confusion seems to have arisen on account of fact that instead of the last digit of the registration number being read as '0', same is being read as '6'. Contentions with regard to difference appearing with regard to FIR number and the registration number of the offending vehicle, are no more acceptable in backdrop of the fact that both the claim petitions were suitably amended at the subsequent stage of proceedings and evidence has been led by the parties in view of the amended pleadings available on record. For the similar reasons, there is no merit in the contention raised by the counsel for insurance company that Smt. Channo Devi was examined prior to amendment carried out in the relevant claim petition. At this juncture, it may be noted that affidavit in evidence of said witness was filed on 30.05.14 and she was examined during the course of inquiry on 30.05.14 itself i.e. much after the amendment application had been allowed by Claims Tribunal.
24. I also do not find any force in the other contention raised on behalf of insurance company that the petitioners failed to prove negligence on the part of driver of alleged offending vehicle, in view of contradictions in the plea raised by petitioner in MACP No. 5236/16 wherein it was averred that petitioner himself was driving the motorcycle no. DL8SA6608 and the petitioner while entering into the witness box as PW2, admitted that it was deceased Hari Prakash who was driving the said motorcycle. It is totally immaterial for the purpose of deciding this issue as to who was driving the vehicle of the victims.
25. The MLC (which is part of criminal case record) of Raghmender(PW2) prepared at M.B. Hospital, would show that he had been removed to said hospital with alleged history of RTA. It is mentioned in said MLC that he had sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Post mortem was got conducted on the body of deceased Hari Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 Prakash at Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. Copy of PM Report (which is part of criminal case record) would show that his cause of death is opined due to coma and shock as a result of head and other injuries and were possible due to road traffic accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance company.
26. Not only this, mechanical inspection report dated 06.03.07 (which is part of criminal case record) of RTV No. DL1VA2860, would show fresh damages i.e. its front body and bumper damaged from right side; front right side indicator light damaged and window glass of driver door was broken. Likewise, mechanical inspection report dated 06.03.07 (which is part of criminal case of record) of Motorcycle No. DL8SAA6608 of victims, would show fresh damage on its front wheel mudguard and rim; its front both shocker damaged; head light and both indicator light damaged; its front body frame damaged; handle damaged; petrol tanker damaged; battery dislocated; engine system damaged and number plate was also found to be damaged. Said documents have not been disputed by the respondents and corroborate the ocular testimony of PW2 to the extent that the aforesaid RTV had hit the motorcycle of the victims from the opposite side.
27. 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 preponderance of probabilities that Hari Prakash had sustained fatal injuries and injured Raghmender had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 03.03.2007 at about 5.55 pm in between Daryapur and PS. Bawana road, due to rash and negligent driving of RTV bearing registration no. DL1VA2860 being driven by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
28. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 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 Amount in MAC Petition No. 5197/16 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
29. As already stated above, the petitioners in this claim petition have claimed that deceased Hari Prakash was aged 27 years old; was working as driver and was earning Rs. 7,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. PW1 Smt. Channo Devi (Mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A on similar lines. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of Remarks documents
1. Copy of her voter I card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of ration card Ex. PW1/2
30. During her crossexamination, she deposed that she is not the eyewitness of the accident. She further deposed that she did not have any certificate of her deceased son showing his age. She further deposed that she did not have any proof of income of deceased. She denied the suggestion that her son was more than 27 years. She further denied the suggestion that they were not dependent upon the deceased.
31. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent evidence with regard to monthly income of deceased Hari Prakash, his income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. It may be noted here that the petitioners have failed to file any document concerning educational qualification of deceased. As already noted above, PW1 Smt Channo Devi has Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 admitted during her cross examination that she did not have any proof of income of deceased. Mere bald statement made by PW1 in this regard, cannot be accepted under the law. For want of any definite evidence regarding monthly income of deceased being led by the petitioners, his monthly income has to be assessed as that of unskilled worker as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The Minimum Wages of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable as on 03.03.07, were Rs. 3,470/ per month.
32. Now, the question arises as to what was the age of deceased at the time of accident in order to decide the multiplier which would be applicable in order to calculate the loss of dependency. As already noted above, PW1 who is mother of deceased, admitted during her crossexamination that she does not have any age proof of deceased. The only other document placed on record by petitioners, is the copy of family Ration Card, which is Ex. PW1/2. However, the relevant column meant for mentioning date of birth therein, is lying blank. In other words, there is no definite or concrete documentary evidence regarding age of deceased. The only document which can be of help in this regard, is copy of PM report of deceased prepared at Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. According to said document, age of deceased is mentioned as 27 years i.e. the age as mentioned in the claim petition and as also deposed by PW1 in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. The respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal to the claim regarding age of deceased being 27 years and mere suggestion has been put to PW1 that deceased was more than 27 years at the time of accident, which suggestion has been denied by the witness. In view of these facts and circumstances, the age of deceased is accepted as 27 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable as per dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC & Ors." reported at 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as well as in view of recent pronouncement made by constitutional bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
33. Keeping in view the fact that deceased Hari Prakash was undisputedly bachelor at the time of accident and was survived by his parents and there is nothing on record to establish that his father i.e. Sh. Ram Singh (since expired) was financially dependent upon him, it is held that petitioner no. 2 Smt. Channo Devi alone was financially dependent upon deceased at the time of accident. Thus, there has to be deduction of 1/2 as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 40% towards element of future prospect in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged less than 40 years of age at the time of accident), in view of recent pronouncement made by constitutional bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 4,95,516/ (Rs. 3,470/X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. Rs. 4,95,516/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
34. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
35. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 4,95,516/
2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 5,25,516/ Rounded Off to Rs. 5,26,000/ Compensation in MACP No. 5236/16(Injured Raghmender Kumar) MEDICAL EXPENSES
36. PW2 Sh. Raghmender Kumar has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A that after the accident, he was removed to M.B. Hospital, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 245/07. He further deposed that he had sustained head injury with fracture femur(RT), shaft fracture in shoulder (RT) and fracture tibia on the other parts of body. Thereafter, he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he remained hospitalized from 04.03.07 to 27.03.07 and was treated for head injury management conservatively and interlocking nailing was done for fracture femur and closed interlock nailing of tibia was also done. He also deposed to have spent considerable amount on his treatment. He has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 6,58,825.42 paise as Ex. PW2/2(colly). During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that he had not incurred Rs. 4,00,000/ on his treatment. Respondents no. 1 & Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 2 did not crossexamine the said witness despite grant of opportunity. It is quite evident that respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills filed on record. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 6,58,825.42 paise is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of Income
37. PW1 Raghmender Kumar has deposed that he was self employed as driver and was earning Rs. 6,000/ per month. Since the date of accident, he has been rendered jobless as he does not know any other work and his financial condition has been badly affected on account of head injury with fracture femur(RT), shaft fracture in shoulder (RT) and fracture tibia on the other parts of body sustained by him due to accident in question. Thereafter, he was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where he remained hospitalized from 04.03.07 to 27.03.07. He further deposed that he was treated for head injury management conservatively and interlocking nailing was done for fracture femur and closed interlock nailing of tibia was also done. He has relied upon his medical treatment record as Ex. PW2/1 (colly). Apart from the fact that the relevant part of his testimony has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW3 & PW5 as well as from his medical treatment record.
38. PW3 Dr. Yudhvir Singh, CMO, M.V. Hospital, produced attested copy of MLC No. 24507 dated 03.03.07 in respect of injured Raghmender Singh, wherein it is mentioned that said injured brought in the aforesaid hospital on 03.03.07 with alleged history of RTA. PW3 deposed that the said patient was examined by Dr. Rizwan Rashid who has already left the services of hospital. He exhibited the MLC of said patient as Ex. PW3/1(colly). During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he himself had not treated the aforesaid patient. However, respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine him at all.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
39. PW5 Dr. Pradeep Dua, Sr. Medical Officer, Jaipur Golden Hospital, produced entire medical treatment record of injured Raghmender S/o Puran Mal and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/1(Colly). During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he himself had not treated the aforesaid patient. However, respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine him at all.
40. The treatment record (Ex. PW2/1 colly as also Ex. PW5/1 colly) of Jaipur Golden Hospital in respect of injured Raghmender, would reveal that he remained admitted in the said hospital from 04.03.07 till 27.03.07. He had received treatment from Neuro Surgery Department as he had sustained Head Injury with fracture femur of right side shaft. Said record would also show that initially, head injury was treated by providing conservative treatment, whereafter closed interlock nailing of tibia was done on 19.03.07 and interlocking nailing was done for fracture femur on 24.03.07. At the time of discharge from the hospital, patient was advised to visit the hospital for his review and followup with OrthoOPD and also to consult dietitian for diet chart. Treatment record (Ex. PW2/1 colly) also contains prescriptions in respect of visits made by petitioner as OPD patient from time to time. The last receipt for attending private OPD by petitioner in Jaipur Golden Hospital, is dated 28.12.07. The bills for purchase of medicines as well as reports of investigations done in respect of petitioner are even for subsequent period also. Apart from aforesaid documents produced by PW2 & PW5, the petitioner has failed to file any other medical treatment record in order to show the period upto which he had received the medical treatment. Nevertheless, it has been established on record that petitioner had suffered permanent physical impairment to the extent of 67% in relation to his right lower limb, in view of disability certificate dated 08.10.16 which is Ex. PW4/1 and in view of the testimony of PW4 Dr. G.C. Verma of BJRM Hospital.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
41. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work on the part of Tribunal in assessing the loss of income. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as proved from his medical treatment record and in view of ocular testimonies of the witnesses available on record, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 10 months or so.
42. During the course of arguments, counsel for claimant/petitioner fairly conceded that for want of concrete evidence regarding monthly income of injured being led during the course of inquiry, his income may be assessed as that of an unskilled worker as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period.
43. In the absence of any definite evidence with regard to actual avocation and monthly income of petitioner, his monthly income is being assessed as that of unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs. 3,470/ p.m at the time of accident. Thus, a sum of Rs. 34,700/ (3,470/ x
10) is awarded in favour of petitioner and against the respondents under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
44. Injured himself as PW2 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW2/A that he had sustained head injury with fracture femur(RT), shaft fracture in shoulder (RT) and fracture tibia apart from other injuries on his body. Apart from the fact that said part of his testimony has gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, same is duly corroborated by the medical treatment record(Ex. PW5/1 colly) of Jaipur Golden Hospital. He remained admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital from Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 04.03.07 to 27.03.07. Discharge summary of the said hospital would show that the petitioner had sustained head injury fracture femur right side shaft and during the course of treatment, closed interlock nailing of tibia was done on 19.03.07 and interlocking nailing for fracture femur was done on 24.03.07. His treatment continued for considerable period even thereafter as he also attended private OPDs in the same hospital as per medical advise given to him at the time of his discharge from the said hospital. Moreover, he has also sustained permanent disability of 67% in relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he 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. 1,00,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Manjeet Singh & Ors bearing MAC.APP. 359/2009 decided on 10.04.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
45. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had suffered head injury with fracture femur right side shaft due to the accident. During the course of treatment, closed interlock nailing of tibia was done on 19.03.07 and interlocking nailing for fracture femur was done on 24.03.07. He has also sustained permanent disability of 67% in relation to right lower limb, which is duly established from the testimony of PW4 Dr. G.C. Verma and disability certificate (Ex. PW4/1) issued by Medical Board of BJRM Hospital. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life. 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. 1,00,000/ towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner. (Reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Manjeet Singh & Ors bearing MAC.APP. 359/2009 decided on 10.04.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
46. Although, injured as PW2 has deposed that he had spent Rs. 20,000/ each towards special diet and conveyance. However, no definite evidence has been led by him to prove the same. Thus, it would involve guess work on the part of Tribunal to award notional amount under this head since petitioner would have definitely taken rich protein diet for his speedy recovery as he had sustained head injury with fracture femur right side shaft. 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. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 20,000/ each on account of special diet and attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/ on account of conveyance charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
47. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 67% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 16.09.09 (Ex. PW4/1) of Medical Board of BJRM Hospital. The petitioner has also testified in this regard while examining himself as PW2 during inquiry. As per the testimony of PW4 Dr. G.C. Verma, the petitioner was found to have suffered 67% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb. PW4 testified that in view of the disability of the kind sustained by the petitioner, he would have difficulty in walking on slopes, climbing the staircase, in standing on right lower limb/affected limb, in squatting on the floor, in sitting with cross legs, in kneeling and in taking turns. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he clarified that previous disability certificate of the patient was also made part of the file while Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 assessing his disability by Disability Board and all the relevant treatment record including MLC and discharge summary of the patient, was duly considered by Disability Board while assessing the aforesaid disability. He denied the suggestion that there is no reference of hip injuries in MLC Ex. PW3/1. He clarified that as per medical science, stiffness of the kind suffered by patient/petitioner, does not get reduced with the passage of time and said stiffness was found present even in the year 2016. He also produced copies of calculation chart as well as of notesheet prepared at the time of assessing the disability and copies thereof were exhibited as Ex. PW4/R1(Colly). However, respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine him at all despite grant of opportunity.
48. Keeping in view the fact that the permanent disability sustained by petitioner is in relation to right lower limb, he can not be expected to perform any work/job requiring him to remain standing continuously for long duration or involving field visits. He can perform only such kind of activities wherein he can remain sit or can travel by any mode of transport. The petitioner is claimed to be a driver by profession which requires involvement of his both the lower limbs. Thus, it would not be possible for him to continue with the avocation of driving after the accident in question. After taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries and the type of permanent physical impairment suffered by petitioner, his functional disability is taken as 40% with regard to whole body. The petitioner was aged about 22 years of age as on the date of accident, as averred in the claim petition. However, in the copy of his Voter Card (Ex. PW2/4), his age is mentioned as 22 years as on 01.01.08. The date of accident is 03.03.2007. In view of said document, his age would come somewhere between 21 to 22 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 as per dictum of law laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC & Anr., mentioned supra and in view of the recent pronouncement made by constitutional bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 28 MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra.
49. The notional monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 3,470/ per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 1,943/ ( 3,470/ x 40/100 x 140/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 4,19,688/ (1,943/ x 12 x 18). Thus, a sum of Rs. 4,19,688/ is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.(Reliance placed on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Anil Kumar Chauhan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", MAC APP No. 856/12011 decided on 03.11.14).
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
50. Counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner/injured Raghmender Kumar was unmarried at the time of accident and in view of disability suffered by him due to said accident, chances of his marriage prospect have decreased considerably. He therefore, urged that reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded to him under this head.
51. On the other hand, counsels for respondents opposed the aforesaid contention on the ground that no compensation is to be awarded under this head as no evidence whatsoever has been led by petitioner on this aspect.
52. After considering the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, I find substance in the submissions raised on behalf of respondents. While examining the petitioner in terms of clause 26 of MCTAP, he himself stated on oath that he is already married and he is having wife and one son aged 8 years. That being so, no amount of compensation is being awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 Thus, t he total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 6,68,825.42 paise
2. Loss of income Rs. 34,700/
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/
4. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/ attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 4,19,688/ Total Rs. 13,73,213.42 paise Rounded off to Rs. 13,74,000/
53. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance company tried to avoid the liability of insurance company on the ground that there was composite negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle and there was contributory negligence on the part of pillion rider of the motorcycle. Based on this submission, he contended that contributory/composite negligence to the extent of 50% should be taken on the part of deceased Hari Prakash who was driving the motorcycle as there was head on collision between RTV bearing registration no. DL1VA2860 and motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAA6608, as well as on the part of injured who was sitting as pillion rider. He further argued that deceased did not have any valid DL at the time of accident.
54. On the other hand, counsel for petitioners/claimants vehemently argued that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of driver or pillion rider of motorcycle and thus, the insurance company is liable to pay entire awarded amount to them.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
55. I have given my anxious consideration to the respectful submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of material available on record. The pleas raised by insurance company that there was composite negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle and contributory negligence on the part of pillion rider of said motorcycle, remained unsubstantiated during the course of inquiry. No evidence whatsoever has been led by insurance company on this aspect. While deciding issue no. 1 in both the claim petitions, it has been held that the accident occurred solely because of negligent driving on the part of driver of RTV bearing registration no. DL1VA 2860. What is relevant to note is that insurance company did not even put any suggestion during crossexamination of injured/PW2 Raghmender Kumar in this regard. It is not clear as to how it is being claimed on behalf of insurance company that there was any contributory negligence on the part of pillion rider of the aforesaid motorcycle. Even if it be presumed for the sake of arguments that there was head on collision between the said two vehicles, same would not ipso facto lead to the inference of composite negligence on the part of driver of the said motorcycle in the occurrence of accident in question. Likewise, no composite/contributory negligence on the part of deceased can be inferred merely because his DL could not be brought on record. Hence, both the said pleas are liable to be rejected. Insurance company has otherwise not pressed breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of insured as it was fairly contended by counsel for insurance company during the course of arguments that driving licence in favour of respondent no. 1 was got duly verified by insurance company during the course of inquiry. Even otherwise, no evidence has been led by insurance company on this aspect. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017 ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
56. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award a sum of Rs. 5,26,000/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition No. 5197/16 and a sum of Rs. 13,74,000/ (including interim award amount if any) in MAC Petition no. 5236/16, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petitions i.e. 29.03.2007(in MACP No. 5197/16) and on 23.04.2007(in MACP No. 5236/16) in favour of petitioners and against the respondents 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). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
57. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP were recorded on 19.09.17 & 08.11.17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 5197/16, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ shall be immediately released to petitioner Smt. Channo Devi through her saving bank account no. 448702010052821 with Union Bank of India, Ochandi, Bawana Road, Post Ochandi, Delhi having IFSC Code. UBIN0544876 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/ each for a period of six months, twelve months, eighteen months and so on and so forth.
All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the claimant/petitioner.
(ii) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant/petitioner.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
(iii) 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 claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant/petitioner.
(iv) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/petitioner without permission of the Court.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(vi) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
58. Out of award amount in MAC Petition No. 5236/16, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ shall be immediately released to the petitioner/injured Ragmander through his saving bank account no. 30658667542 with State Bank of India, Bawana, Narela Road, Delhi having IFSC Code. SBIN0007895 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount 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.
All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(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 claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant/petitioner.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/petitioner without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 28MACP Nos. 5197/16 & 5236/16, FIR No. 117/07; PS. Bawana DOD: 23.11.2017
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit account of the victim.
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
59. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd./R3 being insurer is directed to deposit the award amounts in SBI Rohini Court Branch, within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ and Rs. 7,00,000/ immediately in the aforementioned Saving Bank Accounts of petitioners namely Channo Devi and Ragmander respectively, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is also directed to prepare the FDRs in terms of this Award and to transfer the interest amount becoming due on the said FDRs, directly in the aforesaid Savings Bank Accounts, as per rules. It is also directed that the maturity amount of FDRs as and when becoming due for encashment, shall also be transferred directly to the aforesaid Savings Bank Accounts of the claimants, 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. Order be given dasti to the claimants as well as to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copies of bank passbooks and copies of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IV in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be 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. 5236/16, as per the rules.
Announced in the open Court on 23.11.2017 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Channo Devi and Raghvender Vs. Sohan Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 28