Delhi District Court
Ms. Seema vs Rohit (Driver) on 9 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 471/2019
CNR No. DLCT010088962019
Ms. Seema
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Goswami,
R/o Gali No. 7, Hari Nagar,
Kankar Khera, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh250001.
(PAN Card No. EFJPS1630M)
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Rohit (Driver)
S/o Sh. Pramod,
R/o H. No. 318, Nek Pur,
Sabit NagarII, Modi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
Central Workshop1,
Banda Bahadur Marg, Delhi.
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company)
Core3, First Floor, Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar District Center,
Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 08.07.2019
Arguments concluded on: 09.11.2021
Date of Award: 09.11.2021
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 1 of 39
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
08.07.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of an accident which took place on 07.02.2018 at 12.30 PM,
at Axis Bank, Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in which the petitioner
Ms. Seema had suffered Simpe Injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 07.12.2018 at about 12:30 Noon near Axis Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi the petitioner Ms. Seema was crossing the road. In the meantime, a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL01PD2095 came at a very high speed and hit the petitioner as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. Some public persons shifted the injured/ petitioner to LNJP Hospital where she received treatment.
(3) A brief common reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Rohit (Driver) and respondent no.2 Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner) wherein it is averred that the accident in question is a result of the careless and negligent behaviour of the claimant herself since at that time the claimant was crossing the road he was engrossed on talking over the phone, did not care about the approaching bus and suddenly and unexpectedly came in front of the bus. It is further averred that the respondent driver tried his level best to save her but she slightly came in contract with the bus and suffered injuries. It is also averred Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 2 of 39 that the police also did not collect the relevant and best evidence which included the call record of the mobile phone of the claimant. It is further averred that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant point of time. (4) A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd. wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the alleged accident was caused on account of negligence of the petitioner while crossing the road without proper care and caution. It is averred that as per the medical opinion on MLC of Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi both from Orthopedic and E.N.T. point of view the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner in the alleged accident is "Simple" in nature. There is an inconsistency in the MLC and treatment records provided by the IO wherein the treatment relates to dental injuries and as per the MLC there is no such injury. The Insurance Company has conceded that on the date of alleged accident i.e. 07.02.2018, the vehicle bearing registration No. DL01PD2095 was insured in the name of M/s. Antony Road Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vide policy No. 12140031170100000251 valid and effective w.e.f. 16.06.2017 to 15.06.2018. It is further pleaded that the liability of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company, if any, is subject to the terms, condition, limitation and exceptions contained therein and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder. It is also averred that without prejudice, the respondent no.3 cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimants until & unless it is proved that their insured vehicle No. DL Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 3 of 39 01PD2095 was involved in the said accident and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. It is further averred that in case, it is proved that the vehicle bearing No. DL01PD 2095 was involved in any accident even then the Insurance Company shall not be liable until and unless it is proved by the owner/ insured that the driver who was driving the alleged accidental vehicle at the time of accident was holding a valid and effective license and that he was not disqualified to hold and obtain the same. It is also averred that the owner/ insured must further prove that the vehicle in question had valid Permit and Fitness Certificate for the area where the alleged accident took place, failing which the Insurance Company shall not be liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company has taken all the defenses/ pleas available to it under law, including those under Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act 1938; Sections 134C, 147 & 149 of the MV Act, 1988 and rules made thereunder. According to the respondent no.3, as per Chapter 5.11 (4) of the Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure, the respondent no.3 seeks permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to contest the case on all grounds available to the alleged driver and owner/Insured, without prejudice to Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, in case they failed to contest the claim or if there is any collusion between the claimant and other respondents i.e. the driver and owner/insured of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL01PD2095. It is also averred that although the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation, but if any award is passed and respondent no.3 is directed to pay the same Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 4 of 39 then the petitioner may be directed to provide the PAN details, including the details of the bank account in terms of I.T. Act and RBI Guidelines otherwise the respondent shall be entitled to deduct various amounts from the awarded amount for non compliance in terms of I.T. Act.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 19.08.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has settled the following issues: i. Whether the petitioner Seema sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 07.02.2018 at about 12.30 PM within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi?
ii. Whether the bus no. DL01PD2095 driven by Rohit was involved in the abovesaid accident?
iii. If, so whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus No.DL 1PD2095?
iv. If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
v. Relief. EVIDENCE (6) In order to prove her case, the petitioner Ms. Seema has
examined as many as Six Witnesses. On the other hand, the respondents Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 5 of 39 have not examined any witness.
(7) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of all the witnesses are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition No.
1. HC Arun Pratap PW1 HC Arun Pratap is a summoned witness who has (PW1) brought the salary record of the Injured Seema a Constable in Delhi Police. He has placed on record the following documents:
1. Salary record of injured Seema for the period 07.02.2018 to 09.12.2019 which is Ex.PW1/A (running into 25 pages).
2. Leave record of injured Seema for the period 07.02.2018 to 09.12.2019 which is Ex.PW1/B (running into one page).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case and the record and has voluntarily explained that he has only produced the record on the directions of the department.
2. Ms. Seema (PW2) PW2 Ms. Seema is injured in the present case who in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/A has corroborated the version of police in the DAR. She has placed her reliance on the following documents:
1. Photocopies of the original prescription of Doctor of Anubhav Hospital, Meerut which are Ex.PW2/1 (Colly, 07 pages).
2. Photocopies of the documents relating to her visit to Bhagwati Face & Dental Clinic in Kankar Khera which are Ex.PW2/2 (Colly, 3 pages).
3. Photocopy of her Aadhar Card bearing No. 564414658195 which is Ex.PW2/3.
4. Photocopy of OPD Card of Indian Spinal Injuries Center, Vasant Vihar, Delhi which is Ex.PW2/4 (Colly, 2 pages).
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 6 of 39
5. Photocopies of OPD Card of Indian Spinal Injuries Center, Vasant Vihar, Delhi alongwith test reports which are Ex.PW2/5 (Colly, running into 6 pages).
6. Copy of Detail Accident report alongwith bills and prescription which are collectively Ex.PW2/6.
In her cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That she knew the contents of her affidavit in evidence.
That she is employed with Delhi Police since the year 2010.
That she was never posted in Delhi Traffic Police.
That she is entitled to get all his medical expenses reimbursed from her department.
That she did not apply for reimbursement of her medical bills, related to the present case, with her department.
That completely disregard to the Traffic Regulations means that "Respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle at high speed, rashly and negligently".
That the place from where she was crossing the road was having a Zebra Crossing and she was crossing the road on this Zebra Crossing.
That she does not remember whether the site plan attached with DAR Ex.PW2/6 was prepared by the Police officials at her instance or not, however, the same was signed by her.
That she does remember that the traffic at the spot at the relevant time was heavy, moderate or light. However, the witness again stated that the traffic on the road was normal.
That the road on which the accident took place was having a divider in its middle and after crossing that divider, she walked about 23 steps on the road when she was hit by the bus.
That before crossing the road, she had seen the vehicles approaching towards her on the road.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 7 of 39 That she is having a good eyesight.
That she is not aware if there was any vehicle in front or behind the bus.
That when she started crossing the road from divider, the bus was visible to her, however, she cannot tell as to what was the distance between her and the bus.
That she is 12th class passed.
That she understand the units of measurement e.g. foot, meters, yards, etc. That the distance between her and the bus was about 10 to 15 feet when she started crossing the road from divider.
That she does not know driving.
That she is not aware whether she was ever having any driving licence or not.
That she does not know what does she mean by "high speed" however the speed of the bus was very high and was above the normal speed.
That she was not talking on mobile phone while crossing the road.
That she does not know whether the doctors of Lok Nayak Hospital discharged her or she left the hospital of her own and has voluntarily explained that she was taken from the hospital on the request of her family members.
That she did not make any complaint to any authority of the hospital regarding not getting the proper and complete treatment from the LNJP hospital.
That she suffered external injuries on her face, teeth, abrasion on left hand, fracture on left hand, injury on her back, stitches on upper lips, abrasion all over the body.
That she was also bleeding from her nose as well as mouth.
That she is still suffering from headache till date due to the said accident.
During the crossexamination of the witness, this court has observed that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2 was taking long time in cross examining the witness with regard to the injuries to the Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 8 of 39 witness already reflected in the MLC for which Ld. Counsel was directed to ensure that only relevant question be put to the witness.
That all the bills relating to her treatment are on record but she is not sure if they are of Rs.1,50,000/ or not.
That she has already placed all the documents, regarding her treatment, on record.
That she has no other document in respect of her present claim till date.
That the treatment which she has taken from Meerut Hospital is relating to RCT but has denied that RCT was done on her darh (tooth). The witness has voluntarily explained that she has suffered teeth injuries for which RCT was done which she suffered due to the accident. That she has not placed any document in respect of services of any attendant, special diet, conveyance, medicines and disposable materials as expenses borne by her as claimed by her in para 14 of her affidavit Ex.PW2/A. That she has not placed on record any document in respect of any advise given by any doctor relating to special diet.
That she cannot admit or deny if no doctor has advised her bed rest and has voluntarily explained that the same is a part of the medical record.
3. Dr. Suryaprakash PW3 Dr. Suryaprakash D., Sr. Resident (ENT), Lok D. (PW3) Nayak Hospital, Delhi is a summoned witness who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Sr. Resident (ENT) in Lok Nayak Hospital.
2. That he has been shown the MLC bearing No. 1116088 dated 07.02.2018 of Ms. Seema W/o Kuldeep which is part of DAR already Ex.PW2/6 according to which he had examined the patient namely Seema on 07.02.2018 and the said MLC bears his signatures at point A. Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 9 of 39
3. That he has seen the documents relating to treatment provided and prescription with regard to patient namely Ms. Seema which documents are now Ex.PW3/A (colly, 3 pages, i.e. one page written on both side and one page written on one side.).
4. That as per the documents Ex.PW3/A, the patient Seema was having history of bleeding from nose and mouth (oral cavity), she was having abrasion on left zygomatic region (left upper cheek), laceration on above upper lips of left side (under the left nose), swelling and tenderness on left side forehead (above left eye brow), zygomatic region, blood clots inside the nasal cavity both sides.
5. That after examination, the patient was advised for Xrays nasal bone and Xray PNS and medicines were prescribed and the patient was referred to Orthopedic department.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed that as per his opinion, the nature of injuries was simple from ENT point of view and as per the documents prepared by him, the patient was not advised any bed rest.
4. Dr. Bushu Harna PW4 Dr. Bushu Harna, Sr. (Ortho), LNJP Hospital, (PW4) Delhi is a summoned witness who in his examination inchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is working as Senior Resident (Ortho) in LNJP Hospital.
2. That he has seen the document i.e. Ortho Emergency Notes prepared by Dr. Kamesh and Dr. Nishant and the same is Ex.PW4/1.
3. That as per the Ortho Emergency Notes Ex.PW4/1, the patient Seema W/o Sh. Kuldeep aged about 26 years old was examined by Dr. Kamesh and Dr. Nishant.
4. That as per the records, the patient suffered simple injury in view of Orthopedic opinion with respect to back and knee injury.
5. That he cannot identify the signatures of Dr. Nishant.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 10 of 39
6. That he cannot give any opinion about any other injuries suffered by patient Seema, mentioned in the MLC bearing no. 111608287 Dated 07.02.2018.
7. That it is mentioned in the Ortho Emergency Notes Ex.PW4/1 at point encircled X that there was mild tenderness in the spine.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That he cannot identify the signature of Dr. Nishant and his handwriting encircled X as he has never worked with him nor he has seen him signing and writing during the official course of duties.
That he has only mentioned what is written at point encircled X on Ex.PW4/1.
That he has never examined injured himself and hence he cannot comment on the nature of injuries.
That the witness has voluntarily explained that whatever he has deposed is on the basis of the notes Ex.PW4/1 as put to him but he cannot certify with regard to its correctness as he is neither the executant nor he recognize the handwriting of the person who had written the same.
5. Dr. Amrish Banga PW5 Dr. Amrish Banga, Dentist Maxillo Facial (PW5) Surgeon, Clinic at 1/103, Shraddha Puri, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 08.02.2018, he had examined Mrs. Seema, aged 28 years having a history of road traffic accident as told her about a day back and she informed that it was a Non MLC case.
2. That according to the injured, there was a history of vomiting and nasal bleed.
3. That CT Head was directed to be got done which is Ex.PW2/2.
4. That he referred her for CT Face and after getting the same done she produced the finding/ report which report is Ex.PW5/1.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 11 of 39
5. That on the basis of the radiological report, he had given the treatment vide Ex.PW5/2.
6. That on 26.08.2018 Mrs. Seema had again come to him for a followup treatment and the treatment paper of the same is Ex.PW5/3.
7. That the bill issued by him is Ex.PW5/4.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That he is not a radiologist and he had not conducted the CT Scan of the patient and has voluntarily explained that she had got the CT scan done from outside and only brought the report before him.
That as per the treatment prescribed, the patient was given an Antacid, Antibiotic and a pain killer.
That as per the available record put to him, the said period continued from 08.02.2018 to 03.05.2018, however, she was on antibiotics only for 35 days but she used to regularly come to him for follow up.
That as per his notes the injury on the lips was sutured/ treated elsewhere when she had come to him and has voluntarily explained that he only confined the treatment to left central incisor and lateral incisor.
That the expenses incurred by her during the treatment relating to his fees was only Rs.3,700/.
6. Dr. Kamal Swarn PW6 Dr. Kamal Swarn, Anubhav Hospital, Kankar (PW6) Khera, Meerut Cantt. Uttar Pradesh has in his examinationinchief deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 13.02.2018, he examined Mrs. Seema who had come to the hospital with a history of fall.
2. That on examination, he found that there was a fracture in the wrist i.e. Pisiform bone.
3. That after examination, he advised her Cast below elbow for 30 days.
4. That the treatment and examination papers are already Ex.PW2/1 bearing his writing at point Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 12 of 39 bracketed A and signatures at points encircled X.
5. That after examination, he had suggested MRI DL Spine to the patient Smt. Seema.
6. That after getting the MRI DL Spine done, the patient had brought the MRI report to him.
7. That after seeing the report, he can say that there was disc bulge at L4, L5 level and disc desiccation at T9 and T10 level for that he advised her absolute bed rest for 5 to 6 weeks.
8. That he has treated her from 13.02.2018 to 15.06.2018 and the copy of treatment record is Ex.PW6/1(3 pages).
9. That the bills issued by him are Ex.PW6/2 (colly, running into 6 pages).
10. That the total amount raised in the bills is Rs.2,900/.
A specific Court Question was put to the witness as to what was the history given to him by the patient to which the witness replied that he was told by the patient that she fell down and received injury (mujhe ye bataya gaya tha ki mai gir gayee thee aur chot lag gayi).
Again on a Court Question, the witness has clarified that in so far as he recollects, THE PATIENT HAD TOLD HIM THAT SHE FELL DOWN AND THERE WAS NO INFORMATION REGARDING ANY ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT.
Further, the witness has replied to the specific question put by the Court that in these cases they ask the patient to inform in writing whether they want a police complaint/ information or not, however, in the present case, there was no such information.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(8) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents no.2 & 3. I have also Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 13 of 39 gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Seema sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 07.02.2018 at about 12.30 PM within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi?
Issue No.2: Whether the bus no. DL01PD2095 driven by Rohit was involved in the abovesaid accident?
Issue No.3: If, so whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus No. DL1PD2095?
(9) All the above three issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. Onus of proving all the issues was upon the petitioner.
(10) The case of the petitioner is that on 07.02.2018 at around 12:30 PM she was crossing the main road from Axis Bank, Asaf Ali Road, Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi when a DTC bus bearing No. DL1PD2095 which was being driven by its driver came at a high speed, rashly and negligently in complete disregard to the traffic regulations and hit her with great force. According to the petitioner, as a result of the impact she fell down on the road and suffered multiple grievous injuries and after causing the accident, the bus fled away from the spot. (11) In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they have not denied the accident in question or the involvement of DTC Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 14 of 39 bearing No. DL1PD2095 rather it is the case of the respondents no.1 and 2 that the petitioner herself was negligent and careless since she was crossing the road while talking over mobile phone. (12) I have gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the petitioner, documents placed on record and considered the submissions made before me.
Identity of the Driver:
(13) First coming to the aspect of identity of the respondent no.1 Rohit being the driver of the bus which had caused the accident is concerned, I may note that the respondents have nowhere disputed that the respondent no.1 Rohit was driving the DTC bus in question bearing No. DL1PD2095. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of injured Ms. Seema who in her first statement recorded on the same day i.e. 07.02.2018 had also disclosed the registration number of the offending bus i.e. DL1PD2095. It was later on that the Investigating Officer obtained duty slip of the above bus from DTC Depot and it was known that at the time of accident Rohit S/o Sh. Pramod, R/o 318, Nek Pur, Sabit NagarII, Tehsil Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. i.e. the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle. The respondent/ driver has not led any evidence in rebuttal to establish that the bus was not involved in the accident. This being the background, I hold that the identity of the respondent no.1 Rohit as the driver of offending Bus bearing No. DL1PD2095 as Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 15 of 39 well as its involvement in the accident in question stand established.
Nature of Injuries:
(14) Now coming to the aspect of Injuries caused to the petitioner Ms. Seema, it is the case of the injured that she received her first treatment at LNJP Hospital and after getting treatment from LNJP Hospital she left the hospital at around 2:00 AM on 08.02.2018.
According to her, on 08.02.2018 she developed sever pain, vomiting and bleeding from nose after which she was taken to Bhagwati Face & Dental Clinic in Kanker Khera, Meerut in the morning where she received treatment. She further claimed that on 13.02.2018 she developed pain in back and hand after which she was rushed to Anubhav Hospital, Meerut where she received treatment till 29.06.2018. According to the petitioner, she suffered a fracture and therefore, it was a case of grievous injury.
(15) In support of her case the petitioner has examined Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) Dentist Maxillo Facial Surgeon, Shraddha Puri, Meerut, U.P. who has proved that on 08.02.2018, he had examined Mrs. Seema having a history of road traffic accident about a day back as told by her and she informed that it was a Non MLC case. He has proved that he referred the patient for CT Face and after getting the same done she produced the finding/ report which report is Ex.PW5/1 (Note: As per the Findings: Mandible appears normal; Medial & lateral pterygoid plates are normal; Orbital bones are normal; Walls of Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 16 of 39 Paranasal sinuses are normal; Clibriform plate appears normal; Zygomatic arches are normal; Base of skull appears normal and Nasal bones are normal and no significant abnormality detected) pursuant to which he gave her treatment vide Ex.PW5/2. The perusal the said treatment record reflects that there was a history of RTA one day back wherein she had specifically told Dr. Amrish Banga (PW56) that it was a Non MLC case. There was no history of seizures; the patient was conscious, oriented; there was abrasion over left FEZ; left molar prominence; small lip laceration which had been sutured elsewhere on account of which Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) prescribed her antiallergic medicines, antibiotics, pain killers and eye drops. As per the report of CT Scan Report Ex.PW5/1 as noted above, no abnormality had been detected and perusal of the document Ex.PW5/2 shows that the treatment and payment made was in fact for two RCTs got done by her from the Dentist Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) which payment was finally cleared on 05.05.2018.
(16) According to Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) Mrs. Seema had come to him for a followup treatment as reflected in Ex.PW5/3 and the bill issued by him is Ex.PW5/4. In his crossexamination, the witness has specifically deposed that the patient was given an antacid, antibiotic and pain killer. According to him, the said period continued from 08.02.2018 to 03.05.2018 and has clarified that she was on antibiotic for 35 days but she used to regularly come to him for follow up. He has further testified that as per his notes the injury on the lips had been Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 17 of 39 sutured/ treated elsewhere when she had come to him and only confined the treatment to left central incisor and lateral incisor. Here, I may observe the petitioner has specifically informed the Dr. Amrish Banga that it was a non MLC case and perusal of the treatment record Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/4 show that she had received the Root canal Treatment. In so far as the sutures are concerned, she has already been treated at LNJP Hospital. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that RCT got conducted from Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) was an outcome of the accident in question. In fact the petitioner has herself claimed before the concerned doctor i.e. Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) that it was a non MLC case.
(17) Further, the petitioner has examined Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) from Anubhav Hospital, Kankar Khera, Meerut Cantt. U.P. who has proved the documents which are Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2 showing that the petitioner Ms. Seema was examined by Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) on 13.02.2018 (five days after the accident) and on examination he found that there was a fracture in the wrist i.e. Pisiform bone and the relevant documents in this regard are Ex.PW2/1. The witness Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) has admitted that he has suggested MRI DL Spine to the patient Smt. Seema and after seeing the MRI report, he found that there was disc bulge at L4, L5 level and disc desiccation at T9 and T10 level for which he advised her absolute bed rest for 5 to 6 weeks. The relevant treatment record is Ex.PW6/1 and Ex.PW6/2. However, in his crossexamination he has clarified that Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 18 of 39 the history given to him was that she fell down and received injury (mujhe ye bataya gaya tha ki mai gir gayee thee aur chot lag gayi). On a specific Court Question Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) has specifically clarified that in so far as he recollects, the patient had told him that she fell down and no information was given to him regarding any road traffic accident. The witness has also clarified that in such like cases they always ask the patient to inform in writing whether they want a police complaint/ information or not, but in the present case, there was no such information. The relevant portion of the crossexamination of Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) is reproduced as under:
"..... On Court Question: What is the history given to you by the patient? Was it road traffic accident or a fall?
Ans: I was told by the patient that she fell down and received injury (mujhe ye bataya gaya tha ki mai gir gayee thee aur chot lag gyi).
Court Question: Did the patient inform you that she had received injury in a road traffic accident? Ans: In so far as I recollect she told me that she fell down and there was no information regarding any road traffic accident.
Court Question: What is the procedure adopted by you in case of OPD patient in a road traffic accident?
Ans: In these cases we ask the patient to inform in writing whether they want a police complaint/ information or not. Vol. In the present case there was no such information......".
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 19 of 39 (18) The witness Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) is the witness of the petitioner herself and his testimony on the above aspect that the petitioner herself had informed him on 13.02.2018 that she fell down and there was no information regarding any road traffic accident, has gone unrebutted. Certain Court Questions were put to this witness Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) which confirms that the injuries sustained by the petitioner Ms. Seema for which she received treatment from Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) was not on account of the accident in question but was on account of a fall. It is this which goes against the case put forth by the injured before this Court who herself is a police officer and deemed to be aware of law.
(19) I have also gone through the medical documents prepared at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi. The photocopy of the MLC of the injured/ petitioner Ms. Seema which has been placed on record along with the DAR which is Ex.PW2/6. Perusal of the same shows that the petitioner Ms. Seema was brought to Lok Nayak Hospital on 07.02.2018 at 1:09 PM with alleged history of RTA near Axis Bank, Asaf Ali Road around 12:50 PM. On local examination, there was an abrasion on left cheek about 3 X 2 cm and lacerated wound on inner side of upper lip about 1 X 0.5 cm. Also, as per the medical documents of Lok Nayak Hospital Ex.PW3/A the injured Seema was having history of bleeding from nose and mouth (oral cavity); abrasion on left zygomatic region (left upper cheek); laceration on above upper lips of left side (under the left nose); swelling and tenderness on left side forehead (above left eye Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 20 of 39 brow); zygomatic region and blood clots inside the nasal cavity both sides. The injured Ms. Seema was advised Xray of Nasal Bone and X ray of cervical spine and as per the Xray reports, there was no bony injury. Further, the petitioner Ms. Seems was advised NCCT Head and as per the report of NCCT Head of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, again there was no bony injury. Dr. Suryaprakash D. (PW3) SR (ENT), Lok Nayak Hospital has very specifically proved that as per nature of injures was Simple from ENT point of view. The medical documents proved by Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) establishes that he had only given the Root Canal Treatment to the petitioner and there was no injury to any of her tooth and nothing of this kind is reflected in the first report prepared by Dr. Suryaprakash D (PW3). (20) Further, Dr. Bushi Harna (PW4) SR (Ortho) Lok Nayak Hospital has proved that the patient Seema had suffered Simple Injury in view of Orthopedic Opinion with respect to back and knee injury. (Reference in this regard is made to the testimonies of Dr. Suryaprakash D.PW3 & Dr. Bushi HarnaPW4).
(21) In so far as the fracture in wrist i.e. Pisiform Bone of the petitioner is concerned, I may note that the accident in question had taken place on 07.02.2018 and as per the MLC there was no injury in the form of swelling or tenderness on her hand at that time. For the first time she visited Anubhav Hospital, Meerut (as proved by Dr. Kamal SwarnPW6) on 13.02.2018 i.e. after five days of the accident and did not give the history of accident to the concerned doctor. Rather, Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) has proved that the petitioner has given him Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 21 of 39 the history of a fall (not Road Traffic Accident). Had the petitioner suffered any injury on her wrist on the day of accident I am sure the same would have been reflected in her MLC which is not the case. The possibility of the petitioner having suffered the fracture later on cannot be ruled out.
(22) I may observe that the petitioner Ms. Seema is a Constable in Delhi Police and was not even available at her residence during the period of her leaves during which she claims she was on medical rest. The perusal of judicial record shows that vide order dated 25.07.2018 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had issued a notice to the SHO PS Darya Ganj to explain the reasons for non filing of DAR pursuant to which it was reported by the SHO as under:
".....In the above mentioned case as told by the IO, injured Seema is still in Medical Leave and as husband works in air force she is presently somewhere at northeast for her recovery. She has been contacted on different occasions but as of now no contact could have been established and she is unable to provide the required medical documents in order to get the DAR filed.....".
(23) The above report dated 09.08.2018 of the SHO PS Darya Ganj shows that the petitioner Seema was in fact in NorthEast India. No medical certificates so from Meerut are contrary to the oral testimony of Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6). Had the petitioner been on total bed rest, she would not have been in a position to fly to NorthEast India where her husband was posted.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 22 of 39 (24) Though the petitioner has tried to show that she had been receiving treatment for the injuries suffered by her after the accident till 29.06.2018 yet there is nothing on record to show that the injuries suffered by her are Grievous in nature. Rather, the opinion of the various doctors establishes that nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident were Simple from ENT point of view as well as Orthopedics point of view. Therefore, it stands established that the petitioner Ms. Seema sustained Simple Injuries in the accident in question.
Rashness & Negligence:
(25) Now coming to the aspect of rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Rohit. I may note that the petitioner Ms. Seema (PW1) has specifically stated in her examination by way of affidavit that the DTC bus bearing No. DL1PD2095 was being driven by its driver at high speed, rashly and negligently in complete disregard to traffic regulations.
(26) The defence raised by the respondent no.1 Rohit is that it was the petitioner who herself was careless negligent and while crossing the road she was talking over her mobile phone and did not care about the approaching bus.
(27) I may note that the petitioner in the present case namely Ms. Seema is a member of the same department where the matter was investigated and the possibility of her influence over the Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out. Firstly, no photographs of the place of Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 23 of 39 accident has been placed on record to show the existence of a Zebra crossing at the spot of incident. Secondly, the site plan so prepared by the Investigating Officer does not reflect that the petitioner was using the point specifically marked for crossing the road i.e. zebra crossing, rather as per the siteplan the accident had taken place near the central verge of the road and there is no indication of any Zebra Crossing or installation of red light or even blinkers near the place of accident.
Thirdly, the respondent no.1 Rohit has specifically taken a stand that the petitioner was talking over mobile phone. It is evident from the record that the Investigating Officer has not collected any Call Detail Records of the mobile phone of the petitioner relating to the relevant time when the accident took place. It is this record of Call Details which would have demolished the defence of the respondent no.1 Driver. However, even the respondent no.1 has failed to lead any such evidence to show that the petitioner was crossing the road while talking over the mobile phone. Hence, this aspect of Contributory Negligence on this aspect does not stand established but it does stand established that the petitioner was not crossing the road from the Zebra Crossing. (28) In view of the above coupled with the fact that the respondent no.1 Rohit has been made an accused in FIR No. 46/2018, PS Daryaganj under Section 279/337 IPC wherein she has been arrested and has also been chargesheeted, I hereby hold that the petitioner had suffered Simple Injuries in a road traffic accident which took place on 07.02.2018 at about 12:30 PM near Axis bank, Asaf Ali Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi not only on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 24 of 39 No. DL1PD2095 by the respondent no.1 Rohit but also on account of Contributory Negligence of the petitioner herself. Therefore, in my considered view 05% (Five Percent) of the entire compensation amount shall be liable to be deducted towards contributory negligence.
(29) All the three issues are accordingly disposed off.
Issue no.4: If the finding on issue no.1, 2 and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
(30) Onus of proving the above issue was upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner Ms. Seema is that she has spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ towards treatment, medicines and implants and more amount is likely to be spend in future. The petitioner further claimed that on account of slight exertion she developed unbearable pain and had to take pain killers and rich protein diet for which she had spent Rs.300/ per day. According to her, she has visited Bhagwati Hospital and Anubhav Hospital as outdoor patients on about twenty occasions and she had to pay Rs.300/ per visit (to and fro) for conveyance. The petitioner further claimed that after the accident she is using three wheeler as mode of conveyance to attend her duties and is spending Rs.200/ per day for the same.
(31) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and the evidence on record.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 25 of 39 (32) Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner has placed her reliance upon the various medical bills which are Ex.PW5/4 & Ex.PW6/2 details of which are as under:
Sr. Details of Bill Date Exhibit No. Amount in No. Rs.
1. Receipt of Face & Dental Clinic, 05.05.2018 Ex.PW5/4 3,700/ Meerut, U.P.
2. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 14.02.2018 Ex.PW6/2 200/ Meerut, U.P.
3. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 14.02.2018 Ex.PW6/2 250/ Meerut, U.P.
4. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 28.03.2018 Ex.PW6/2 200/ Meerut, U.P.
5. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 19.03.2018 Ex.PW6/2 200/ Meerut, U.P.
6. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 14.02.2018 Ex.PW6/2 1,850/ Meerut, U.P.
7. Receipt of Anubhav Hospital, 19.03.2018 Ex.PW6/2 200/ Meerut, U.P.
8. Receipt of Dr. Jaideep Tomar 11.02.2018 4,000/ Imaging & Diagnostic Center, Meerut
9. Bill of Gupta Medical Store, 73/ Meerut
10. Bill of Gupta Medical Store, 294/ Meerut
11. Radiology receipt of SERP 14.12.2018 2,500/ Healtcare India Pvt. Ltd. Meerut, U.P.
12. Medicine Bill of Krishna 19.03.2018 698/ Medicose, Meerut, U.P.
13. Medicine Bill of Krishna 15.02.2018 412/ Medicose, Meerut, U.P. Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 26 of 39
14. Medicine Bill of Krishna 13.02.2018 577/ Medicose, Meerut, U.P.
15. Medicine Bill of baliyan Medical 11.02.2018 549/ Agency, Meerut, U.P.
16. Medicine Bill of Jain medical 15.03.2018 938/ Store, Meerut, U.P.
17. Medicine Bill of Friends 07.02.2018 280/ Medicos, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi
18. Medicine Bill of Krishna 09.05.2018 150/ Medicose, Meerut, U.P.
19. Medicine Bill of Mahaveer 19.05.2018 640/ Medical Store, Meerut, U.P.
20. Medicine Bill of Sai Medicose, 18.09.2018 700/ East Krishna Nagar, Delhi .
21. Medicine Bill of Rahul Medical 21.08.2018 360/ Store, Meerut, U.P.
22. Payment slip of Anand Skin & 21.08.2018 300/ Child Care Center, Meerut, U.P.
23. Payment slip of Anand Skin & 17.09.2018 300/ Child Care Center, Meerut, U.P.
24. Medical Bill of Reeta Medicose, 30.05.2018 400/ Meerut, U.P.
25. Medicine Bill of Rahul Medical 17.09.2018 1,473/ Store, Meerut, U.P.
26. Medicine Bill of Rahul Medical 21.09.2018 461/ Store, Meerut, U.P. Total 21,705/ (33) All the above medical bills/ receipts are in respect of the treatment received by the petitioner from Dr. Amrish Banga (PW6) and Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6). Since it has already been held that the petitioner Ms. Seema has not been able to connect the treatment received by her from Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) and Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) with the accident dated 07.02.2018, therefore, I hold that the Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 27 of 39 petitioner shall not be entitled to any compensation with respect of the above medical bills which were issued from Meerut during the period after 08.02.2018 in respect of Non MLC Case and failure to connect the treatment wit the alleged accident dated 07.02.2018.
(34) Now coming to the aspect of Loss of Income of the petitioner/ injured Ms. Seema who is a Constable in Delhi Police. The salary record and leave record of the petitioner has been duly proved by HC Arun Pratap (PW1) which record is Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B. The Pay Slips for the month of February 2018 till November 2019 have also been placed on record which show that in the month of February 2018 i.e. when the accident in question took place, the gross salary of the petitioner was Rs.42,304/ and the Net payable salary was Rs.30,245/. (35) Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the petitioner remained of medical leaves w.e.f. 07.02.2018 till 10.09.2018 i.e. more than seven months on account of the accident in question and hence, she is entitled to compensation towards loss of leaves which she may be entitle to encash on year to year basis or at the time of her superannuation and the compensation for loss of leave has to be at the rate of her salary. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Omkar & Ors. MAC. APP No. 872/2018 decided on 10.10.2019 and Ashwani Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC. APP No. 1103/2011 decided on 06.08.2012.
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 28 of 39 (36) I have duly considered the aspects raised before me and also the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. At the very Outset in so far as the petitioner having suffered loss of income on account of number of leaves she has taken is concerned, I may observe that the case being put forward by the petitioner Ms. Seema on facts has not been proved by her. She has not been able to establish that the medical rest advised to her was a consequence and resultant of the accident in question, rather the dentist Dr. Amrish Banga (PW5) has specifically stated that the petitioner had informed him that it was a non MLC case. Further, Dr. Kamal Swarn (PW6) has specifically responded to a query put by this Court and stated that the petitioner at no point of time given a history of accident, rather the history given by the patient i.e. petitioner was of a fall. Therefore, the question of connecting her medical leaves with the alleged accident does not exist. The record also reveals that during the period of her leaves, the petitioner was not available to the Investigating Officer but was in NorthEast India where her husband, who was in the Air Force, was posted at the relevant point of time. It has not been established that her non performance of duties during this period of seven months was a direct consequence or resultant of the accident in question dated 07.02.2018. I may also observe that the petitioner had received full salary from her department for the period she remained on leaves i.e. w.e.f. 07.02.2018 till 10.09.2018 (as evident from Ex.PW1/A). There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had suffered any loss of leaves which she was entitled to encash on year to year basis and hence the judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 29 of 39 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case.
(37) I may further note that the ratio in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Omkar & Ors. (Supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case since the injured in the said case was undergoing physiotherapy for regular movement but in the present case the petitioner has failed to connect the injuries to back and wrist with the alleged accident nor any document or evidence has been placed on record relating to physiotherapy treatment. (38) This being the background, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of income or loss of leaves. (39) Now coming to the aspect of Disability of the petitioner, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that she has not suffered any Disability on account of the accident in question.
(40) In so far as the Special Diet expenses, Conveyance charges and Attendant charges are concerned, this Court has already observed that the petitioner has failed to connect her medical leaves of seven months with the accident in question. Even otherwise, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that she has not filed any document towards her Special Diet, Conveyance and Attendant Charges. I may also note that no Nursing Attendant has been examined to prove that the petitioner has availed the services of Nursing Attendant. (41) Further, the petitioner claimed that she is still under treatment and would require Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for future consultation/ medicines. However, the petitioner has not placed Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 30 of 39 on record any document to prove the same nor examined any doctor to prove that she require treatment in future also. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation towards future treatment. (42) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Conveyance 5,000/ Expenditure on Special Diet 5,000/ Cost of Nursing/ Attendant 5,000/ Mental & Physical Shock, Pain & 20,000/ Suffering Total 35,000/ Deductions @ 05% towards 5% of 35,000 = 1,750/ Contributory Negligence Total Compensation 35,000 - 1,750 = 33,250/ (43) I may note that interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC). In the interest of justice, it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 08.07.2019 till realization (except for the period w.e.f. 18.11.2019 till 09.12.2019 - Vide order dated 18.11.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has held that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 31 of 39 w.e.f. 18.11.2019 till 09.12.2019).
Disbursement:
(44) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Ms. Seema was recorded on 19.01.2020 according to which she is working as Constable in Delhi Police and getting salary of Rs.42,597/ per month. According to her, after the accident she could not attend her duties for more than six months on account of the injuries suffered by her in the accident.
She has stated that her monthly household expenses are about Rs.31,000/ per month.
(45) This being the background and considering the quantum of amount, on realization of the award amount, the entire award amount plus interest be released to the petitioner in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. dated 08.01.2021, the entire amount shall be transferred in the saving account of the petitioner maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to her only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal. (46) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble Delhi High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 32 of 39 in the prescribed FormatXVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 07.02.2018
2. Name of the Injured: Smt. Seema
3. Age of the Injured: 28 Years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Constable in Delhi Police
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.42,597/
6. Nature of Injury: Simple
7. Medical Treatment taken by Lok Nayak Hospital, the injured: Bhagwati Face & Dental Clinic, Meerut and Anubhav Hospital, Meerut, U.P.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 07.02.2018 till 08.02.2018
9. Whether any permanent Nil disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no 5,000/
document)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no 5,000/
document)
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 33 of 39
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant (no 5,000/
document)
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income Nil
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 35,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % Nil earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL 35,000/ Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 34 of 39 Deductions @ 05% towards 5% of 35,000 = 1,750/ Contributory Negligence Total Compensation 35,000 - 1,750 = 33,250/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 6,867/ (2 Years, 3 Months & 17 Days)
17. Total amount including interest 40,117/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para 45
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para 45
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para amount of the claimant(s) 45
21. Next date for compliance of the award 10.12.2021 Liability:
(47) In so far as the liability to pay the award amount is concerned, since the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1PD2095 was being driven by respondent no.1 Rohit and respondent no.2 Delhi Transport Corporation is the registered owner whereas the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. therefore all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 35 of 39 the petitioner under the statutory liability. (48) Issues is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
(49) Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. therefore, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.33,250/ (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 08.07.2019 till realization (except for the period w.e.f. 18.11.2019 till 09.12.2019) with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioner failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (50) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days. (51) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for compliance within the time granted.
Respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 36 of 39 with upto date interest with a copy to the counsel for the claimant namely Sh. Atul Rathi Advocate, Chamber No. 206, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Mobile No. 9810540219). (52) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 10.12.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(53) A copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(54) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 09.11.2021 PO, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 37 of 39
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 07.02.2018 2 Date of filing of FormI - First Accident Not Applicable being an old case Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of FormII to the victim(s) Not Applicable being an old case 4 Date of receipt of FormIII from the Driver Not Applicable being an old case 5 Date of receipt of FormIV from the Owner Not Applicable being an old case 6 Date of filing of the FormV - Interim Not Applicable being an old case Accident Report (IAR) 7 Date of receipt of FormVIA and Form VIB Not Applicable being an old case from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of FormVIII - Detail Accident 08.07.2019 Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company 07.08.2019 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Yes Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer No legal offer filed by the of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company 14 Date of award 09.11.2021 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open No such order was passed by the savings bank account(s) near their place of Ld. Predecessor Court at the Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 38 of 39 residence? time of filing of DAR.
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near No such order was passed by the his place of residence and produce PAN card Ld. Predecessor Court at the and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank time of filing of DAR. not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the PAN Card No. EFJPS1630M passbook of their savings bank account(s) near & Aadhar Card produced on the place of their residence alongwith the 19.01.2020. endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? Bank passbook with endorsement produced on 19.01.2020.
18 Permanent residential address of the As per Award claimant(s).
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. Financial Statement of the time of passing of the Award to ascertain petitioner was recorded.
his/their financial condition?
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 09.11.2021 Seema Vs. Rohit & Ors., MACT No. 471/2019, Award dated 09.11.2021 Page No. 39 of 39