Delhi District Court
Sh. Gopal vs Mukesh Kumar (Driver) on 1 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 671/2019
Unique Case ID No. DLCT010120742019
Sh. Gopal
S/o Sh. Bachan Singh,
H. No. A427, Gokal Puri, North East,
Delhi110094.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Hari Ram,
R/o Village & Post Office Panchi Jattan,
P.S. Gannour, District Sonipat
Haryana 131001.
2. Delhi Transport Corporation (Owner)
C.W.1, K Camp, BBM, Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company)
E85, Himalya House K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition/ DAR: 05.09.2019
Arguments heard on: 25.01.2021
Date of passing of Award: 01.02.2021
A W A R D:
(1) The Detail Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
05.09.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 1 of 21
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:03:12
+0530
in respect of the accident which took place on 08.04.2019 at 5.29 PM at
Delhi Gate Red Light, Darya Ganj, Delhi wherein the petitioner
Gopal had sustained injuries.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) Facts in brief as emerged from the DAR are that on 08.04.2019, the petitioner/ injured was coming to his home from his office on the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL6SDS8491 which was being driven by his friend Pushpender whereas he (petitioner) was the pillion rider. At about 5.20 PM, when the motorcyclist Pushpender was crossing Delhi Gate Red Light, a cluster Bus bearing registration No. DLIPC9827 which was driven by the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner, came from front side and directly hit the motorcycle of the Pushpender due to which both Pushpender and Gopal fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Some public person made a call at 100 number pursuant to which PCR came at the spot and the injured were shifted to LNJP Hospital where the petitioner received treatment. According to the petitioner Gopal, at the time of the accident, he was working as Office Boy in Gati Transport and was earning Rs.8,500/ per month. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent Rs.5,000/ on his medical treatment; Rs.3,000/ on conveyance and Rs.3,000/ on special diet and he would spend Rs.1,000/ for his future treatment.
(3) The respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Mukesh Kumar and Delhi Transport Corporation have filed a joint reply to the DAR wherein it Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 2 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:03:31 +0530 is averred that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the present case and false and frivolous case is registered against the driver of the vehicle by the police officials. It is also averred that the offending vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., at E85, Himalya House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi vide Insurance Policy No. 0411003118P1085 w.e.f. from 29.09.2018 to 28.09.2019. It is further averred that the driver of the offending vehicle Mukesh Kumar was having a valid driving license bearing No. HR 6920010195421 and if any liability is fastened upon the respondents in that eventuality the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is solely and absolutely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner / claimant. It is also averred that the police officials have not investigated the matter in a proper manner and falsely involved the vehicle of the respondent in the present case.
(4) A detailed reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company wherein it is averred that after the accident, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed the DAR according to which the Investigating Officer had filed a Kalandra under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act against Ravinder Singh Chauhan (owner of the Motorcycle) for allowing the motorcycle to be driven without Insurance. It is further averred that the Investigating Officer had also filed a Kalandra under Section 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act against Pushpender (driver of motorcycle No. DL6SS8491) for Jumping the Red Light and in both the Kalandras the accused were convicted. It is conceded that the vehicle bearing No. Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 3 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:03:49 +0530 DL1PC9827 was insured with the respondent vide policy No. 041103118P108580682 valid from 29.09.2018 to 28.09.2019 in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation covering the date of alleged accident on 04.09.2019. It is further averred that the liability is subject to terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions contained therein and Motor Vehicle Act and Motor Vehicle Rules framed there under. It is prayer by the respondent no.3 that as per Chapter 5.11 (4) of the claims Tribunal agreed procedure, permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act be granted to them (insurer) to contest the claim on all ground available to the alleged driver and the owner/insured without prejudice to Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act in case they failed to contest the claim or there is any collusion between the claimants and respondents no.1 and 2. The respondent no.3 has taken all the pleas/ defenses available to it under the law including under Section 134 C, 147 & 149 of the M.V. Act. It is averred that the diver of the motorcycle namely Pushpender had jumped the red light and was driving the motorcycle without insurance nor any helmet was seized by the Investigating Officer and therefore, Pushpender himself was responsible for the alleged mishap.
ISSUES:
(5) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the following issues were settled:
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 4 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:04:01 +0530 i. Whether the petitioner Gopal sustained simple injury in the road accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi?
ii. Whether the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by Mukesh Kumar 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 bearing No. DL1PC9827?
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 his case, the petitioner Gopal has examined
himself as his sole witness as PW1. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard. For the sake of convenience, the testimony of Gopal (PW1) is put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition No. Petitioner / Injured 1. Sh. Gopal (PW1) PW1 Sh. Gopal is the injured in the present case who in
his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the DAR. He has placed his reliance upon the following documents: Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:04:13 +0530
1. Discharge summary which is Ex.PW1/1.
2. DAR file, site plan and other documents which are Ex.PW1/3 (Colly, 96 pages).
3. Bills Ex.PW1/4 (Colly, 2 pages).
4. Copy of Aadhar Card bearing No. 704629413665 which is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the witness has deposed as under: That he is well aware that all vehicle should stop on red light.
That the motorcycle dashed against the bus after crossing the red light and has voluntarily explained that other vehicles were also jumping the red light.
That he was in his senses after the impact. That police reached the spot in his presence and took away the motorcycle from the scene of accident.
That police also took the bus into possession. That no other articles was seized from the spot by the police in his presence.
That he is already disabled as four fingers of his left hand were amputated when he was 13 years old.
That his disability as aforesaid is nothing to do with the accident.
That he is aware that it is mandatory to wear a helmet while riding on a two wheeler/ motorcycle. That the police did not seize any helmet.
That apart from Ex.PW1/4, he cannot produce any other document relating to his treatment. That he was discharged from hospital after first aid given to him.
That except the MLC bearing No. 112886616, he has not placed on record any other document relating to his treatment.
That he has not placed on record any proof of his income or employment.
That he has studied till class 9 th and he is 10th class fail.
That he cannot place on record any document in support of future expenses or treatment to the tune Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 6 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:04:25 +0530 of Rs.1,000/ as he has claimed the said amount on the basis of his present medical condition. That he has not placed on record any leave record.
That he cannot admit or deny whether any doctor had recommended bed rest or leave because all the documents are on record.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(7) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. I have also 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 Gopal sustained simple injury in a road traffic accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Darya Ganj, Delhi?
Issue No.2: Whether the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by Mukesh Kumar was involved in the abovesaid accident?
(8) Onus of proving both the issues was upon the petitioner Gopal.
The case of the petitioner is that 08.04.2019 he along with his friend Pushpender were returning home from their office on the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL6SDS8491 which was being driven by Pushpender and he was the pillion rider. At about 5.20 PM, when they were crossing Delhi Gate Red Light, a cluster Bus bearing registration No. DLIPC9827 which was driven by the respondent no.1 Mukesh Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 7 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:04:32 +0530 Kumar in a very rash, negligent and carelessness manner, came from front side and directly hit the motorcycle due to which they both fell down and sustained injuries.
(9) The petitioner has placed his reliance upon the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by the Investigating Officer and the documents attached along with it which are Ex.PW1/3. (10) In so far as the respondents no.1 and 2 are concerned, they do not dispute the accident. Rather, the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar in his statement under Section 165 of Evidence Act has specifically admitted that he was the driver of the offending bus bearing No. DL 1PC9827 and also admitted that the accident had occurred with his vehicle. He has, however, stated that the accident caused due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle who was crossing the road when his side traffic light was red.
(11) I have gone through the documents attached along with the DAR including the MLC of the petitioner Gopal which shows that the injured Gopal was brought to LNJP hospital by the PCR officials on 08.04.2019 at 5:36 PM with alleged history of road traffic accident near Delhi Gate Red Light at around 5:20 PM. As per the MLC the nature of injuries received by the petitioner Gopal were Simple in nature. (12) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the petitioner Gopal had sustained simple injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 08.04.2019 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi involving bus bearing No. DL1PC9827 driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar.
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 8 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:04:40 +0530 (13) Both the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.3: If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827?
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?
(14) Onus of proving both the issues was upon the petitioner Gopal. The case of the petitioner is that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing No. DL1PC 9827. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar is that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle who was crossing the road when his side traffic light was red.
(15) I have gone through the testimony of Gopal PW1 and the documents on record. I may observe that the petitioner Gopal (PW1) in his crossexamination has specifically deposed that the motorcycle dashed against the bus after crossing the red light and has voluntarily explained that other vehicles were also jumping the red light. (16) Further, perusal of the copy of site plan shows that the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827 was going from J.L.N. Marg to N.S. Marg and the motorcycle bearing No. DL6SS8491 was going from Asaf Ali Road to J.L.N. Marg and the spot of accident is middle of Delhi Gate Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 9 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:01 +0530 Crossing Red Light.
(17) The Mechanical Inspection Report of the motorcycle bearing No. DL6SS8491 shows that there were following fresh damages:
1. Right side legguard and rear shocker was scratched.
2. Let Side legguard, handle grip and clutch lever were scratched.
3. Right side foreguard was bend.
(18) On the other hand, the Mechanical Inspection Report of bus bearing No. DL1PC9827 show that front bumper of right side was broken and dislocated.
(19) I may also observe that along with the DAR, the Investigating Officer has also filed a Kalandra under Section 119/177 of Motor Vehicles Act against Pushpendar Kumar the driver of motorcycle no. DL6SS8491, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that during investigations of the case, the CCTV Footage of the area was checked and it was found that the motorcycle driver Pushpender Kumar had jumped the Red Light.
(20) This being the background, I hereby hold that the accident was not caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus bearing No. DL1PC9827, rather it was Pushpender Kumar the driver of motorcycle No. DL6SS8491 who is liable for Contributory Negligence.
(21) Now coming to the aspect of the compensation. The petitioner Gopal is seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/ by Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 10 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:09 +0530 claiming that he was working as Office boy in Gati Transport and was earning Rs.8,500/ per month; Rs.5,000/ towards medical expenditure; Rs.1,500/ on Conveyance charges; Rs.5,000/ on Special Diet; Rs.25,000/ for mental and physical shock and Rs.5,000/ towards loss of amenities of life.
(22) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and the evidence on record. I may note that the petitioner Gopal (PW1) in his crossexamination has admitted that apart from Ex.PW1/4 i.e. medicine bills, he cannot produce any other document relating to his treatment. He has admitted that he was discharged from hospital after first aid given to him. He has also admitted that except the MLC he has not placed on record any other document relating to his treatment. The petitioner has further admitted that he has not placed on record any proof of his income or employment. He has also admitted that he cannot place on record any document in support of his future expenses on treatment to the tune of Rs.1,000/ and has voluntarily explained that he has claimed the said amount on the basis of his present medical condition.
(23) Coming first to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. Perusal of the copy of MLC of the petitioner/ injured Gopal shows that on local examination there were no fresh injuries. Also, the Xray report shows that no fracture or dislocation noted and the nature of injuries were opined to be Simple in nature. Further, the petitioner has placed on record two original medical bills (Ex.PW1/4) amounting to Rs.200/ only.
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 11 of 21
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:17
+0530
(24) In so far as the income of the petitioner/ injured is concerned,
the petitioner Gopal claimed that he was working as Office Boy in Gati Transport. However, he has in his crossexamination specifically admitted that he has not placed on record any proof of his income or employment. According to the petitioner, he had studied till 9 th class. This being the background, there being no document of employment and income of the injured/ petitioner, the minimum wages for Unskilled Worker as on the date of accident is taken as income of the petitioner Gopal i.e. Rs.14,468/ per month.
(25) In so far as the Special Diet expenses, Conveyance Charges and Attendant Charges are concerned, I may note that the petitioner has not placed on record any document showing any expenses incurred towards the same.
(26) Now coming to the aspect of Disability of the petitioner. Though in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner Gopal has stated that he had sustained disability and is unable to earn his livelihood, yet there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had suffered any disability on account of the accident in question. In fact, the MLC of the petitioner Gopal shows that he had suffered Simple injuries and was discharged from the hospital on the same day. (27) Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principals and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 12 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:25 +0530 NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on treatment 200/ Expenditure on Conveyance 1,000/ Expenditure on Special Diet 1,000/ Mental, Physical Shock, Pain & Sufferings 8,000/ Total 10,200/ (28) Since, 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), it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 05.09.2019 till realization of the amount.
Disbursement:
(29) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Gopal was recorded on 03.03.2020 according to which his monthly expenses are about Rs.6,000/ to Rs.7,000/.
(30) 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 contained in FAO No. 842/2003 decided on 07.12.2018, the entire amount shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM Card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 13 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:35 +0530 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.
(31) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018, Summary of the Award in the prescribed FormatIV B is as under: SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 08.04.2019
2. Name of the Injured: Gopal
3. Age of the Injured: 42 Years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Office Boy (not proved)
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.14,468/ per month (Minimum wages for Unskilled Worker)
6. Nature of Injury: Simple
7. Medical Treatment taken by LNJP Hospital the injured:
8. Period of Hospitalization: 08.04.2019
9. Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 14 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:47 +0530
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the No. Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment (as per 200/ medical bills)
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance (no 1,000/ document)
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet (no 1,000/ document)
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant Nil
(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 8,000/ 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. Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 15 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:09:57 +0530
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 COMPENSATION 10,200/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award 1,289/ (One year, four months and twenty six days)
17. Total amount including interest 11,489/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para No.30
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para No.30
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in amount of the claimant(s) para No.30
21. Next date for compliance of the award 05.03.2021 Liability:
(32) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Mukesh Kumar and registered in the name of respondent no.2 Delhi Transport Corporation whereas same was insured with Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 16 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:06 +0530 respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd., all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner Gopal but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
(33) Both the issues are accordingly disposed off.
RELIEF:
(34) The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Hence, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,200/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 05.09.2019 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(35) 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. (36) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:12 +0530 granted. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company 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 with the interest, with a copy to his counsel namely Ms. Babita Tyagi Advocate, Chamber No.497, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Mob. No. 9811396345. (37) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 05.03.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/ deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(38) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(39) File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:24 +0530 Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 01.02.2021 PO, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 18 of 21 FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 08.04.2019 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 10.04.2019 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company Not mentioned in the DAR (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Not Mentioned in the DAR (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer 05.09.2019 before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 05.09.2019 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 05.09.2019 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
Yes (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted? 12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer 17.09.2019 by the Insurance Company (Clause 20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Pankaj Prakash, Manager Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20) Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 19 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:32 +0530 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer No of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer No offer given by Insurance of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) Company 18 Date of award 01.02.2021 19 Whether the award was passed with the consent No of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank 03.03.2020 not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near 20.10.2020 the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
(Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the As per award claimant(s). (Clause 27) 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c No. 39524381786 claimant(s) and the address of the bank with the State Bank of India, Chandni IFSC Code. (Clause 27) Chowk Branch, Delhi IFSC: SBIN0000631 Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 20 of 21 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:42 +0530 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near their place of residence? Yes (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. The financial statement of time of passing of the Award to ascertain the petitioner has been his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) recorded.
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Judge MACT01, Delhi, SBI, name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Customer No. 80761891696, deposited/ transferred.
Code No. 00726
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2021.02.01 17:10:53
+0530
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Judge, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 01.02.2021
Gopal Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 671/2019, Award dated 01.02.2021 Page No. 21 of 21