Delhi District Court
Tulsi Bisht W/O Late Sh. B.S. Bisht vs Asak Ali S/O Sh. Alauddin (Driver) on 27 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
In the matters of :
MACP No. 661/2016
Unique Case I.D. No. DLET010119362016
1. Tulsi Bisht W/o late Sh. B.S. Bisht
2. Pankaj Bisht S/o late Sh. B.S. Bisht
Both R/o Flat No.23, Plot No.8, Him Vihar,
I.P. Extn., Delhi110092.
3. Sushila Bisht D/o Sh. B.S. Bisht
R/o C3/56, Dayalpur Extn.,
Delhi110094. .....................Petitioners
Versus
1. Asak Ali S/o Sh. Alauddin (driver)
R/o Shahbad Road, Bilari, Moradabad2440001, U.P.
2. Zahid Khan S/o Ali Raza Khan (owner)
R/o 212D, Farrachan, Shahbad, Rampur244901, U.P.
3. Chola Mandalam M.S. GIC Ltd. (insurer)
2H, 2I, 2V & 2Q, 2nd Floor, DCM Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
Also at : Plot No.6, 1st Floor, Near Metro Pillar No.81,
Main Pusa Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ..................Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.10.2016 Date of Reserving : 24.11.2020 Date of Judgment : 27.11.2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 1 of 19AND MACP No. 643/2016 Unique Case I.D. No. DLET010111952016 Praveen Kumar Singh (injured) S/o late Sh. Chander Pal Singh R/o 262/546/3, Asha Ram Gali, Mandawli Fazalpur, Ambedkar Marg, Delhi110092. .......................Petitioner Versus
1. Asak Ali S/o Sh. Alauddin (driver)
2. Zahid Khan S/o Ali Raza Khan (owner)
3. Chola Mandalam M.S. GIC Ltd. (insurer) (Details as above) ..................Respondents Date of Institution : 21.09.2016 Date of Reserving : 24.11.2020 Date of Judgment : 27.11.2020 AWARD
1. By this common award, both the claim petitions arising out of same accident, filed under section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would be decided.
2. Important facts of the case are as under. Deepak Bisht died and Praveen Kumar Singh suffered injuries on account of a motor vehicular accident happened on 19.06.2016 at 00:45 hrs (12:45 a.m.), near Galandh Chauraha, opposite Jindal Pipe Factory, District Hapur, U.P. In connection with this accident, ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 2 of 19an FIR No. 351/16, u/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC, was also registered at PS Pilakhua, District Hapur, U.P. As per FIR, got registered on the complaint of petitioner no.2 Pankaj Bisht (brother of deceased), on the aforesaid time and place, deceased Deepak Bisht along with his friend petitioner Praveen Kumar Singh was coming to Delhi from Moradabad, in his car bearing registration no. DL7CP8716 and when they reached at the aforesaid place, a truck bearing registration no. UP22T5401, which was going ahead of their car, applied brakes suddenly without giving any indication and at the same time, another truck bearing registration no. UP22T9446 (in short "offending truck/ vehicle"), hit the car from the backside while being driven at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, car dashed into the truck stopped ahead and Deepak Bisht (driver of the car) died on the spot whereas Praveen Kumar Singh suffered grievous injuries. During investigation, it was found that truck bearing registration no. UP22T9446 was being driven by respondent no.1. In view of above, petitioners in death case claimed compensation of Rs. One Crore, whereas petitioner in injury case claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.
3. On service of notice, all the respondents marked appearance. In both the cases, Respondent no.1 and 2 filed joint written statements and denied the involvement of the offending ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 3 of 19truck in the accident. They have further mentioned that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased. Respondent no.3/insurer also filed written statement taking general defences.
4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed in both cases on 10.04.2017 and 01.03.2017 respectively: In MACP No. 661/16 (In re : Tulsi Bisht):
i). Whether Deepak Bisht, age 31 years, died in a road accident on 19.06.2016 at 00:45 hrs.(12:45 a.m.), near Galandh Chauraha, within the jurisdiction of PS Pilakhua, District Hapur, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of truck no. UP22T9446 by the respondent no.1? (OPP)
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
iii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (OPP)
iv). Relief.
In MACP No. 643/16 (In re: Praveen) :
i). Whether on 18/19.06.2016 at 12:45 a.m., near Galandh Chauraha, Moradabad, in a road accident in which injured Praveen Kumar Singh sustained injuries, had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP22T9446 (truck) driven by respondent no.1?
ii). Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, to what amount and for which period?
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 4 of 19iii). Whether petitioner is entitled to interest on the awarded amount, if so, to what rate of interest and for which period?
iv). Relief.
EVIDENCE (In MACP No. 661/16, case of Tulsi Bisht):
5. Petitioners examined 4 witnesses to establish their claim.
5.1 PW1, Tulsi Bisht (petitioner no.1) deposed about the manner of accident of her son/ deceased, his age, employment and income at the time of accident and relied upon the documents i.e. criminal case record Ex.PW1/1; secondary school examination certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/2; copy of his B.Com final year marks statement Ex.PW1/3; ITRs filed by the deceased for the assessment year 201314 to 201617 Ex.PW1/4; copy of statement of current account of deceased Ex.PW1/5 and copy of identity proofs of deceased and petitioners Ex.PW1/6. 5.2 PW2, Praveen Kumar Singh was examined as eye witness of the accident.
5.3 PW3, K.C. Meena, Insp. Income Tax Department, Ward 58(3), Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, produced the ITRs of deceased for the assessment year 201314 Ex.PW3/1 and 2014 15 Ex.PW3/2 and authorization letter Ex.PW3/3. 5.4 PW4 Pankaj Bisht, brother of deceased produced the ITRs of deceased for the assessment year 201516 Ex.PW3/1 and 201617 Ex.PW3/2.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 5 of 196. The respondents' side examined only one witness i.e. respondent no.1 Asak Ali (R1W1), who deposed on the lines of his written statement.
7. This Tribunal also examined one witness i.e. TW1 SI Maharaj Singh, who proved the case diary Ex.TW1/A. EVIDENCE (In MACP No. 643/16, in case of Praveen) :
8. Petitioner examined 3 witnesses to establish his claim. 8.1 PW1, Praveen Kumar Singh (petitioner/ injured), on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, deposed regarding the manner of accident, medical treatment, his earnings and disfigurement of face suffered by him on account of accident and relied upon the documents i.e. ITRs filed by him for the assessment year 21516 and 201617 Ex.PW1/1; copy of FIR Ex.PW1/2; Site Plan Ex.PW1/3; Inspection Report of offending vehicle Ex.PW1/4; driving license of driver Ex.PW1/5; medical treatment record Ex.PW1/6; copy of his identity document Ex.PW1/7 and estimate of future surgery of face Ex.PW1/8. 8.2 PW2 Dr. Ashok Gupta, M.S. Surgeon, Ashrey Medical Centre, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, proved the certificate/ estimate Ex.PW1/8, given by him regarding future surgery of petitioner. 8.3 PW3 Dr. S.N. Basna, Dy. Medical Superintendent, Chairperson, Disability Medical Board, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, proved the disability certificate Ex.PW3/A, issued by him to petitioner.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 6 of 199. Respondents' side opted not to examine any witness in this case.
10. I have heard Sh. G.S. Bisht, Ld. Counsel for petitioners in MACP No.661/16; Sh. Kumar Gaurav, Ld. counsel for petitioner in MACP No.643/16 and Sh. S.P.S. Chauhan, Ld. counsel for respondent no.3/ insurer in both cases. None appeared for respondent no.1 and 2 to advance arguments. Record of the case has also been perused.
ISSUE No.1 (in both cases):
11. Since issue no.1 in both the cases are interlinked, these would be decided together. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities.
12. The petitioners have examined one eyewitness namely Praveen Kumar Singh in both the cases. In death case (MACP No.661/16), Praveen Kumar Singh deposed as PW1, whereas in injury case (MACP No. 643/16), he deposed as PW2. He has testified that on 19.06.2016, at about 12:45 a.m., he along with his friend Deepak Bisht (deceased) was returning from Moradabad towards Delhi in his car bearing registration no. DL7CP8716, which was being driven by his friend Deepak Bisht. Eyewitness further mentioned that when they reached near ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 7 of 19Galandh Chauraha, Pilakhua, a truck going ahead applied brakes suddenly and accordingly, deceased also applied brakes of car but in the meanwhile another truck bearing no. UP22T9446 (offending vehicle), hit the car from back side and dragged and pushed it into the truck stopped ahead of them. He further mentioned that in the accident his friend died and he sustained multiple injuries. During crossexamination conducted by counsel for insurance company, he has deposed that their car was going at the speed of 90100 kmph, whereas the speed of truck moving ahead of them was about 80 kmph and he had not seen the offending truck before the accident. He further mentioned that when the truck moving ahead had applied sudden brakes, Deepak Bisht stopped the car and he does not know as to what happened thereafter as he became unconscious and regained consciousness at Rama Hospital, Pilakhua. It is observed that respondent no.1 and 2 opted not to crossexamine the sole eye witness and that would mean that the facts narrated by the eye witness against respondent no.1 and 2 remain unrebutted. Though respondent no.1 and 2 in their writtenstatement disputed the involvement of their truck in the accident, however, chargesheet and the supporting documents Ex.PW1/1 would clearly indicate that the offending truck was also seized from the spot in the accidental condition and further, mechanical inspection report of the car of the victims and the offending truck ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 8 of 19clearly indicate that the car was damaged from front as well as back side whereas offending truck was damaged from the front right side. Thus police record clearly corroborates the version of the eyewitness that the offending truck had hit their car from back side and as a result of that car rammed into the truck stopped ahead of them. Further, though respondent no.1 (R1W1) also deposed on the lines of writtenstatement but he has not been able to explain as to how his truck got damaged in the accident. He has also admitted that he is facing trial in the criminal case and he has not made any complaint regarding his alleged false implication.
13. Further, learned counsel for the insurance company has also pleaded that the car had first dashed into the truck going ahead and therefore, at the most, it is a case of composite negligence and at the same time, accident had happened due to contributory negligence as the deceased was driving the car at high speed and was unable to stop the car in time. In view of this court, chargesheet and the other police record do not indicate in any manner that car had first dashed into the truck stopped ahead. For this reason, it is found that testimony of IO/ SI Maharaj Singh (TW1) that the car had first rammed into the stationary truck, has no basis. The case diary produced by the IO Ex.TW1/1 shows that the independent witness Manoj Goel and Bobby, who had reached at the spot immediately after the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 9 of 19accident, had informed that the car was first hit by the offending truck from back side and thereafter, it rammed into the stationary truck from front side. In view of above, it is held that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the offending truck first hit the car from back side and thereafter, it rammed into the stationary truck from the front side. Otherwise also, law on the aspect of composite negligence is clear that the victim has option to demand compensation from the driver and owner of any of the vehicles involved in the accident and it is not mandatory for him to implead the parties related to both the vehicles causing the accident. Further, postmortem report of deceased Deepak Bisht and MLC of injured Praveen Kumar show that they had received injuries in the accident.
14. Thus, in view of this court, there is sufficient material on record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that has resulted into death of deceased Deepak Bisht and injuries to petitioner Praveen Kumar Singh. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 215. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and reasonable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 10 of 19It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. (In death case, MACP No. 661/16):
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:
16. PW1, mother of deceased has deposed that her son was a graduate and was doing the business related to real estate and he was earning Rs.35,000/ per month and he was filing ITR (Income Tax Returns) regularly. Further, she placed reliance on the ITRs for the assessment year 201314, 201415, 201516 and 201617 Ex.PW1/4 and also relied on the current account statement of deceased Ex.PW1/5. Further, to prove the ITRs, petitioners examined PW3 Sh. K.C. Meena, who proved the ITR for the assessment year 20132014 Ex.PW3/1 and assessment year 201415 Ex.PW3/2. Further, PW4, brother of deceased deposed regarding ITR for the assessment years 201516 Ex.PW4/1 and 201617 Ex.PW4/2. It is evident that PW3 has specifically mentioned in the authorization letter Ex.PW3/3 that as per ITD system, Deepak Bisht had filed ITR for the assessment years 201314 and 201415 only. PW4 mentioned that ITRs for the assessment years 201516 and 201617 were filed by his brother and same were found in his documents.
17. It is observed that Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 are single page documents with the title "acknowledgment". Though sticker showing the acknowledgment number and date of receipt has ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 11 of 19been affixed on both the documents but no explanation was given by learned counsel for petitioners as to why these documents were not proved by the official witness from Income Tax Department. It is pertinent to mention here that in ordersheet dated 06.02.2018, learned Predecessor had clearly mentioned that ITR relied upon by PW4 for the assessment year 201516 and 201617 will not be read in evidence as no formal evidence was given to prove the same. Though the petitioners' side was asked to bring evidence for that purpose but they still insisted that their evidence be closed. Therefore, it is held that income of the deceased would be considered on the basis of ITR filed for the assessment year 201415, which reflects the annual income of deceased as Rs.2,61,572/ with income tax liability of Rs.4,282/ and thus, income of deceased is considered as Rs.2,57,290/ per annum (Rs.2,61,5724,282).
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
18. The copy of class10th school certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/2 shows his date of birth as 22.09.1983. Therefore, at the time of accident (19.06.2016), the age of deceased was 32 years and accordingly, multiplier of 16, as applicable to age group between 3135 years, would be applicable.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
19. The deceased was a graduate and was doing his own business. Thus, considering that he was engaged in a permanent ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 12 of 19nature of work, while following the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157), an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 50% has to be considered.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
20. Deceased was unmarried and was survived by his mother and two siblings, who are petitioners in this case. Therefore, half of the income is to deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
21. Applying the multiplier of 16, after making deduction of ½ of the income of the deceased and addition of 50% of future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.30,87,480/ (2,57,290x150/100x1/2x16).
ENTITLEMENT :
22. It has come in the evidence of PW1 (mother of deceased) that petitioner no.3 is the married sister of deceased and petitioner no.2 is the younger brother of deceased, who has done MBA and is employed in a domestic call center. Therefore, petitioner no.2 and 3 cannot be considered financially dependent on their deceased brother. In view of this, entire compensation shall be payable to mother of deceased i.e. petitioner no.1 Tulsi Bisht.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 13 of 19NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES:
23. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 40,000/, 15,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively are awarded on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and thus a total sum of Rs.70,000/ is granted under this head.
24. In view of above, petitioner no.1 shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.31,57,480/ (Rs.30,87,480+70,000).
(In injury case, MACP No. 643/16):
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
25. Petitioner has placed on record medical bills Ex.PW1/6 worth Rs.1,918/. The bills are found to be original and in order and therefore, as sum of Rs.2,000/ is granted to the petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
26. The MLC of petitioner indicates that he suffered injuries on his face, chest and arms in the accident. Further, medical bills and the treatment papers suggest that treatment continued for about one month. Further, PW3 proved that petitioner was found to have suffered disability to the extent of 5% from burns and plastic point of view. Further, treatment record shows that after initial treatment at Rama Medical College, Pilakhua, petitioner got treatment from Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi and also consulted few private doctors. Though, no specific evidence qua nature of injuries suffered by petitioner ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 14 of 19has come on record, however, considering the entire above discussed evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/ to the petitioner under this head.
CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET CHARGES:
27. Though no specific evidence led by the petitioner on this aspect, however, considering the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to to give a sum of Rs.5,000/ each for conveyance and special diet charges. Thus, a total sum of Rs.10,000/ is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME (DURING TREATMENT):
28. It is mentioned by petitioner that due to multiple injuries suffered in the accident, he was not able to work for gain for a long period. As discussed above, the treatment of petitioner continued for about a month. Further, though petitioner mentioned that he was proprietor of a security firm namely M/s SYP and was earning Rs.28,570/ per month as per his income tax returns, however, it is observed that he has not filed ITR for post accident period. In absence of ITR for the said period, it is difficult to ascertain as to whether work of petitioner was impacted in any manner. Still in the interest of justice, this Court grants a sum of Rs.10,000/ to the petitioner for loss of income during treatment period.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 15 of 19LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME (ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY):
29. Though PW3 mentioned that petitioner suffered 5% permanent disability from burns and plastic point of view, however, he has clarified that petitioner has not suffered from any locomotive disability and it would have no impact on carrying out any professional activity or avocation. In view of this, no compensation can be granted to petitioner under this head. FUTURE TREATMENT EXPENSES:
30. Petitioner mentioned that he is required to undergo at least two surgeries requiring expenses of Rs.3 lakhs and has also examined PW2 for this purpose. This court is of the view that evidence brought on record is not sufficient to show the requirement of future treatment. First of all, PW3 has clarified that disability suffered by petitioner is not going to affect him in doing any activity in any manner. Further, it is to be noted down that most of his treatment was done at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi but the treating doctors did not prescribe about requirement of said surgery. Further, PW2 has also clarified that petitioner was not under his treatment at any point of time. Moreover, petitioner failed to explain as to why he had not spent money out of his pocket for the said surgery, even though his financial status appears to be good as per ITR produced by him. In view of this, Court is not inclined to give any compensation ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 16 of 19under this head.
COMPENSATION FOR DISFIGUREMENT OF FACE :
31. Considering that petitioner suffered injuries/ scars on his face and these injuries have resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 5%, as explained above by PW3, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.25,000/ for disfigurement of his face.
32. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.2,000/
2. Pain & Suffering Rs.20,000/
3. Conveyance and Special Diet expenses Rs.10,000/
4. Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.10,000/ Loss for disfigurement of face future Rs.25,000/
5.
(on account of disability) TOTAL Rs.67,000/ ISSUE NO. 3 (in both cases):
33. The petitioner(s) have conducted the proceedings in these cases diligently. Therefore, they are entitled for interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid respective award amount from the date of filing of the petitions till realization. LIABILITY :
34. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 17 of 19has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and in this case, insurance company has not been able to prove that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.3/ insurance company becomes liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF:
In MACP No. 643/16 (In re: Praveen) :
35. Petitioner Praveen Kumar Singh is awarded compensation of Rs.67,000/ (Rs. Sixty Seven Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.
In MACP No. 661/16 (In re : Tulsi Bisht):
36. The petitioner no.1 Tulsi Bisht is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.31,57,000/ (Rs. Thirty One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Only) (rounded off from Rs.31,57,480/) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.
37. The insurance company/respondent no.3 shall deposit the award amount with the Tribunal within 30 days.
MODE OF DISBURSAL In MACP No. 661/16 (In re : Tulsi Bisht)
38. In her statement recorded under Clause 26 of MCTAP, petitioner no.1 Tulsi Bisht has mentioned that she needs ___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 18 of 19Rs.30,000/ per month for domestic/ miscellaneous expenses. Thus, out of the total award amount of Rs.31,57,000/, an amount of Rs.3,57,000/ will be released to petitioner no.1 Tulsi Bisht and balance amount of Rs.28 lakhs and interest will be secured in the form of fixed deposits, as per following schedule :
Sl No. Amount Period of FDR
1 3,00,000/ 01 year
2. 3,00,000/ 02 years
3 3,00,000/ 03 years
4. 3,00,000/ 04 years
5. 3,00,000/ 05 years
6. 3,00,000/ 06 years
7. 3,00,000/ 07 years
8. 3,00,000/ 08 years
9. 4,00,000/ 09 years
10. Interest Component 10 years
39. Form IVA and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure A and B respectively.
VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK
KUMAR GULIA
KUMAR Location: East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Date: 2020.12.01 15:21:19
GULIA +0530
Announced in the open (Vivek Kumar Gulia)
Court on 27.11.2020 Presiding OfficerMACT (East)
(Total 19 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
___________________________________________________________________________________________ MACP No. 661/16; Tulsi Bisht & Ors. Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.;
MACP No. 643/16; Praveen Kr. Singh Vs. Asak Ali & Ors.; Page 19 of 19