Delhi District Court
Ravinder vs Raj Pal Singh on 5 June, 2024
MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 314/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-004651-2019
Sh. Ravindra,
S/o Late Sh. Bhopal Singh,
R/o 95, Ashok Gali,
Bakarkasawan-2,
Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar.
Uttar Pradesh.
(Injured)
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Rajpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Ishwari Singh,
R/o.B-1689,
Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
(Driver-cum-owner)
2. Go Digit General Insurance Ltd.
Delhi Business Centre, 67-68,
Chandra Bhawan Building,
3rd Floor, Nehru Place,
Delhi.
(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution :20.05.2019 Date of Arguments : 04.06.2024 Date of Award : 05.06.2024 Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 1 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 APPEARANCES:-
Sh. Upender Singh and Ms. Shurti Goel, Ld. Counsels for petitioner/injured.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report(DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 346/18 U/s 279/337 IPC registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 19.12.2018 at about 4:10 am near Metro Pillar No. 96, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, GTK Road, Delhi, involving Auto Rickshaw(TSR) bearing registration no. DL1RW-3273 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
2. According to DAR, on 19.12.2018 the petitioner alongwith Rajpal Singh (respondent no. 1) was going to Azadpur Sabzi Mandi from Jahangir Puri by offending vehicle which was being driven by its driver(respondent no. 1) at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 2 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 The respondent no. 1 was requested by the petitioner to drive the offending vehicle at a normal speed and in a careful manner but he did not pay any heed to his request and continued to drive the same in the aforesaid manner. At about 4:10 am, when they reached near Metro Pillar No. 96, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, GTK Road, Delhi, respondent no. 1 suddenly took a sharp turn, due to which offending vehicle got overturned and the petitioner sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 14754/18 and on 20.12.2018, he was taken to RML Hospital, Delhi for further treatment. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 1 himself and insured with Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 2 during the period in question.
3. In his written statement, the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver-cum- owner claimed that the accident had not been caused due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. He further claimed that he was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of accident. On merits, he denied the averments made in the DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
4. Respondent no. 2/insurance company had filed its legal offer, whereby it offered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,11,498/- as compensation towards Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 3 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 full and final satisfaction of the claim raised by petitioner for the injury sustained by him in the accident in question. However, the said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner in the present case.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 27.08.2019 by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Sh. Ravinder suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 19.12.2018 at about 4:10 am at Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, near Metro Pillar No. 96, GTK Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS. Adarsh Nagar due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver-cum-owner Sh.
Rajpal Singh who was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. DL1RW-3273 and insured with Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.?OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined six witnesses i.e. himself as PW1, PW2 Sh. Shubham Bhardwaj, Senior Prosthetis, Autobock Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., PW3 Sh. Vaneet (employer of petitioner/injured), PW4 Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Kumar(employer of petitioner/injured), PW5 Dr. Mrigank Mathur, SR, Orthopedic, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and PW6 Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma(official from the school of child of petitioner/injured). On the other hand, no evidence was adduced Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 4 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 by any of the respondents and respondent's of respondents was closed vide order dated 20.09.2022.
7. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that vide order dated 21.10.2022, it was directed that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest from 21.10.2021 till further orders. A perusal of record reveals that interest on the award amount of petitioner was curtailed as he had failed to conclude his evidence. Record shows that PE was concluded on 02.05.2023. Accordingly, his right to claim interest has been curtailed from 21.10.2021 to 02.05.2023.
8. Final arguments were addressed by respective counsels. The claim petition, including the evidence by the parties carefully perused. All the documents and material relied upon considered. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 19. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Ravindra (injured himself) is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), he has deposed on the similar lines of averments made in the DAR. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 5 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 S. No. Description of document Remarks
1. Medical treatment record Ex. PW1/1(colly)
2. Medical bills Ex. PW1/2(Colly)
3. Quotation of artificial limb Ex.PW1/3(Objected to issued by Autobock as to the mode of Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. proof)
4. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/4(Objected to as to the mode of proof)
5. Copy of his salary Ex. PW1/5(Objected certificate issued by to as to the mode of Yashpal Subhash Chander proof)
6. Copy of his salary Ex. PW1/6(Objected certificate issued by to as to the mode of Choudhary Karan Singh & proof) Co.
7. Copy of his PAN Card Ex. PW1/7
8. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/8
9. DAR Ex. PW1/9(colly)
10. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 1, he denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. During cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company, PW1 deposed that he was going to Azadpur Mandi from his house. He denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place due to sole negligence of driver Rajpal Singh. He further denied the suggestion that he had not suggested the driver of the offending Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 6 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 vehicle to drive the vehicle carefully. He deposed that the PCR Van was parked near the place where the accident had occurred.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that respondents could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination.
It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 346/18 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 19.12.2018 on the basis of GD Entry No. 008A with regard to accident call received in PS. Adarsh Nagar on 19.12.2018. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet (which are part of criminal case record) would show that FIR was registered on the date of accident itself i.e. 19.12.2018. Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondents and / or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner.
12. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Rajpal Singh has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/337/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 7 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
13. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
14. Apart from above, copy of MLC (which is part of criminal case record) of injured prepared at SRHC Hospital shows that he had been taken to Lok Nayak Hospital on 19.12.2018 at 4:30 AM with alleged history of RTA. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 8 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 19.12.2018 at about 4:10 am near Metro Pillar No. 96, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, GTK Road, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
17. It has been duly established that petitioner sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 19.12.2018 at about 4:10 am near Metro Pillar No. 96, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, GTK Road, Delhi, as per his MLC and treatment record duly proved, in the said road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver.
18. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 9 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
19. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 10 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 11 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
21. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. PW1 Sh. Ravindra i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Line, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 14754/2018 and discharged on 20.12.2018 and thereafter, he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for further treatment, where he remained admitted from 20.12.2018 to 28.02.2019. He further deposed that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. post traumatic both lower limb raw area and other injuries. He further deposed that during Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 12 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 treatment in the aforesaid hospital, his both legs above knee were amputated. He further deposed that he had incurred Rs. 1,00,000/- on his medicine, medical treatment and his treatment was still continued. The petitioner has relied upon original medical bills of Rs. 50,345/- which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 (colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that he had not incurred Rs. 1 lakh on his medical treatment.
23. It is not out of place to mention that the respondents more particularly insurance company have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills of Rs. 50,345/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. It may be noted here that petitioner has examined himself twice in the present matter as PW1 by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) on 13.01.2020 and again vide separate affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) on 10.05.2022. Order dated 10.05.2022 does not reflect as to why petitioner was examined again despite his examination on 13.01.2020. Be that as it may, since both the affidavits here tendered in evidence, both of them shall be read for the purpose of this case.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 13 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
25. From the bare perusal of aforesaid two affidavits of petitioner, it is revealed that certain facts in both the affidavits are different and contrary. However, grant of compensation under Motor Vehicle Act being Social Welfare Legislation, this Tribunal, is of the view that petitioner can not be deprived from the compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident on the aforesaid reason. The petitioner has deposed in his testimony recorded on 13.01.2020 that he was working as Vegetable Seller and was earning Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he had not filed any documentary proof regarding his earning of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner has again deposed in his testimony recorded on 10.05.2022 that he was working as a Vegetable Seller with Yash Pal Subhash Chander at A-361, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,, Delhi and was getting salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month and was also working as Vegetable Seller with Choudhary Karan Singh & Co., at D-410, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi and was getting salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month and thus, he was total earning Rs. 35,000/- per month at the time of accident. In his cross- examination on 10.05.2022, he admitted that he had mentioned his income in para no. 5 of his earlier affidavit as Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. He volunteered that he was working at two places and was earning Rs. 18,000/- plus Rs. 17,000/- ,thereby having a monthly income of Rs. 35,000/- per month.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 14 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
26. In order to prove his employment and income, petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. PW3 Sh. Vaneet and PW4 Sh. Sanjay Choudhary. PW3 has deposed in his evidence that he was into the business of sale of fruits and vegetables on commission basis. He further deposed that Sh. Ravinder S/o Late Sh. Bhopal Singh was working with them and he was selling their fruits and vegetables at their shop on monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. He further deposed that the document Ex. PW1/5 was issued by him to Sh. Ravinder. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had not brought any document in respect of salary given to Sh. Ravinder as they did not maintain any such accounts. He further deposed that he had also not brought any document in respect of payment of salary to the petitioner as they did not maintain any such record. He further deposed that he had also not brought any attendance record of Sh. Ravinder. He deposed that he did not remember whether they mentioned the salary of their employees in their ITRs or not. He further deposed that they did not maintain profit and loss account of their shop. He denied the suggestion that document Ex. PW1/5 was a false and fabricated document.
27. PW4 Sh. Sanjay Choudhary has deposed that he was into the business of sale of fruits and vegetables on commission basis. Sh. Ravinder was working with them and he was selling their fruits and vegetables at their shop on monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/-. He further deposed that the document Ex. PW1/6 was issued by him to Sh. Ravinder. During his cross-
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 15 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he had not brought any document in respect of salary given to Sh. Ravinder as they did not maintain any such accounts. He further deposed that he had also not brought any document in respect of payment of salary to the petitioner as they did not maintain any such record. He further deposed that he had also not brought any attendance record of Sh. Ravinder. He deposed that he did not remember whether they mentioned the salary of their employees in their ITRs or not. He further deposed that they did not maintain profit and loss account of their shop. He denied the suggestion that document Ex. PW1/6 was a false and fabricated document.
28. After referring to the testimonies of PW1, PW3 & PW4 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that last drawn monthly salary of injured may be taken as Rs. 35,000/- as per the documents (which are part of Ex. PW1/5 & Ex. PW1/6) produced by PW3 & PW4 in order to calculate his loss of income.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioner to establish his monthly income at the time of accident. Thus, monthly income of petitioner should be taken as per the Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period as he is was the resident of UP at the time of accident.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 16 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
30. Petitioner has examined PW6 Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma in order to prove that he was working and earning in Delhi at the time of accident. PW6 has deposed in his evidence that he was authorized by Principal of St. Vyas School to depose in the present matter and exhibited his authority letter and Aadhaar Card as Ex. PW6/1 & Ex. PW6/2 respectively. He produced the summoned record i.e. attested copy of admission record, progress report, enrollment sheet of child Rudraksh Rajora, S/o Sh. Ravindra Rajora, R/o H.No. 1380, First Floor, G Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and exhibited the same as Ex. PW6/3.
31. As per the the documents produced by PW3 & PW4, petitioner Sh. Ravindra was working with them at their shop as a vegetable seller since last one year. It is apparent on record that petitioner in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he was working as Vegetable Seller and was earning Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, as per the testimonies of PW3 & PW4, petitioner was working with them at the monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- respectively which creates doubt over the testimony of PW1. Before assessing the income of petitioner for computation of loss of income of petitioner due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, it is relevant to mention here that petitioner had examined himself twice in the present case mentioning different income per month. It is seen that in order to fill the lacuna in the case of petitioner after his first examination, he amended the facts regarding his income in his Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 17 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 second affidavit. The above difference in the amounts of earning per month and no documentary proof of any income on record, I am not inclined to accept the monthly income of Rs. 35,000/- of the petitioner as the same is contrary to his averments made in his previous affidavit and no change of circumstances during the period of accident in question till the date of filing of first affidavit by the petitioner was shown.
32. So far as the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner with regard to residence of petitioner in Delhi at the time of accident, PW1 stated in his cross-examination that he did not have any documentary proof regarding his residence in Delhi such as Aadhaar Card, driving licence, ration card and election identity card. He volunteered that his son was studying in a school in Delhi. He further deposed that his identity documents were of UP. He further deposed that he was residing in Delhi for last 16-17 years but did not have any documents in this regard. it is relevant to have look over the testimony of PW6 who was the official from the School where the son of petitioner is stated to have been studied during the period involved in the present case. As per the document produced by the said witness, son of petitioner was the student of their school situated at BK-1, Poorvi Shalimar Bagh, Delhi during the Academic Session 2017-18 & 2018- 19 and has produced the relevant documents i.e. copy of admission and withdrawal register and progress report of the aforesaid sessions. Bare perusal of the said documents show that Rudraksh Rajora, S/o Sh. Ravindra Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 18 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 (petitioner herein) was studying in St. Vyas School, situated in Delhi in the academic sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 in 2 nd and 3rd Class respectively. The date of accident in the present case is 19.12.2018. It can be noted here that a student of 2nd or 3rd class can not live alone in Delhi during the relevant period. So, it can be safely presumed that petitioner was also residing in Delhi at the time of accident as the accident in question has occurred on 19.12.2018. Petitioner has failed to file any document in respect of his educational qualification. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to assess the loss of income of petitioner while taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the NCT of Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 14,000/- per month as on the date of accident which is 19.12.2018 and the same amount is considered for the petitioner.
33. The treatment record i.e. Discharge Report (which is part of Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, in respect of petitioner/injured Sh. Ravindra, would reveal that he had admitted in the said hospital on 20.12.2018 and was discharged on 28.02.2019. As per the aforesaid treatment record, petitioner was found to have suffered right ankle and lower leg crush injury and PTRA left leg with below knee amputation with suction drain placement and STSG coverage of PTRA left leg. The petitioner has also filed OPD Cards (which are also part of Ex. PW1/1 colly) of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 19 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
34. Apart from the aforesaid documents, petitioner has failed to file any treatment record to show the exact period of treatment obtained by him from the hospitals. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work on the part of Tribunal in assessing the loss of income. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the treatment record relied upon by him, he was visited Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital as OPD patient on 04.03.2020 and thus, it can be safely presume that treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable period after the accident as the date of accident in the present case is 19.12.2018. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 73% in relation to both lower limb and there was below knee amputation of right side with left side mid foot amputation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and the permanent disability suffered by him, it is reasonable to consider that the petitioner would have been precluded to resume his necessary activities of daily life for a period of 18 months. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs. 14,000/- x 18) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
35. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 20 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
36. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he has suffered grievous injuries and 73% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right sided below knee amputation with left sided mid foot amputation due to the accident in question. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him including permanent disability suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
37. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 21 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 accident. His treatment record would also show that he had suffered grievous injuries and 73% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right sided below knee amputation with left sided mid foot amputation due to the accident in question. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
38. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in respect of amount incurred by him on conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and 73% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right sided below knee amputation with left sided mid foot amputation. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 22 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each for conveyance and special diet and a sum of Rs.30,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
39. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 73% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right sided below knee amputation with left sided mid foot amputation. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 14.10.2019 Ex. PW1/4 issued by Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
40. As per the testimony of PW5 Dr. Mrigank Mathur, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 73% permanent disability in relation to his both lower limbs in terms of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW1/4). He further deposed that the case of the petitioner was that of right side below knee amputation and left side forefoot amputation. He deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus, reassessment was not recommended. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he could not tell the functional disability of aforesaid injured in relation to whole body. He denied the Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 23 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 suggestion that the disability suffered by the injured has no co-relation with the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. He further denied the suggestion that the disability of the aforesaid patient was not assessed by Disability Board as per the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Health or that disability certificate Ex. PW1/4 had been issued without properly examining the aforesaid patient or merely at the instance of the patient.
41. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was working as Vegetable Seller in Azadpur Mandi at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 73% in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right side below knee amputation and left side forefoot amputation, he would never be able to resume work as Vegetable Seller as his avocation involves frequent field visits and proper movement of his all limbs and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
42. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of insurance company that the disability of the petitioner is not that much which could amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
43. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 24 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held as under:
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less.Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 25 of 37
MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
44. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that the petitioner was stated to be working as Vegetable Seller in Azadpur Mandi and he has suffered 73% in relation to his both lower limbs and there was right side below knee amputation and left side forefoot amputation. PW-5 Dr. Mrigank Mathur, SR, Orthopedic, BSA Hospital has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that petitioner was a Vegetable Seller at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that for any Vegetable Seller, proper movement of both lower limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the amputation suffered by him in the accident. The petitioner has suffered 73% permanent physical impairment in relation to his both lower limbs with amputation of below knee right side with amputation left forefoot, which is going to adversely affect his avocation. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered(permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb and amputation of right lower limb(below knee) in the present accident, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100% towards loss of earning capacity. (Reliance placed on "Arjun & Ors., Vs. IFFCO Tokio Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 26 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 General Insurance Co. Ltd.", MAC Appeal No. 223/16, decided on 04.01.2018, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malti Devi & Ors., in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr, in MAC. APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors., in MAC. APP. 585/2012, decided on 28.05.2015 , decided on 28.05.2015", passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi).
45. In copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/8) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1974. The date of accident is 17.09.2021. In view of said document, his age was about 44 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 14,000/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 10,220/- (Rs. 14,000/- x 73/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 21,46,200/- (Rs. 10,220 x 12 x 14 x 125/100). Thus, a sum of Rs. 21,46,000/- (rounded off) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 27 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 ARTIFICIAL LIMB AND ITS MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
46. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner requires artificial limb due to the amputation and thus, appropriate amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head. PW1 Sh. Ravindra has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW11/A that he would need artificial limb for his both legs and the cost of artificial limbs would be Rs. 3,46,458/- which would need replacement after every 5-6 years. For this, he has relied upon the quotation issued by Ottobock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi deals in selling of artificial limbs and the aforesaid company had issued a quotation of Rs. 3,46,458/- to him. He exhibited the copy of said estimate as Ex. PW1/3 . During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied that on that day, he had appeared before the Court with the help of artificial limb. He admitted that he had artificial limbs in both his lower limbs but he was not able to stand or walk by using artificial limbs as they were not good.
47. During cross-examination of PW1 on 11.09.2023, the Court had observed that the witness/injured was on wheelchair at the time of deposition. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately using the wheelchair in the court or that he was able to move with artificial limbs. He denied the suggestion that he was wearing his artificial limbs while coming to the court or that he had deliberately removed them for getting enhanced compensation, Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 28 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 while appearing in the court. He admitted that he was carrying the artificial limbs but was not wearing them. He volunteered that those artificial limbs had been given to him by somebody and were useless. He denied the suggestion that he had not given an estimate of Rs. 3,46,458/-for his artificial limbs or that the document was forged and fabricated.
48. Apart from the ocular testimony of PW1, the petitioner has also examined PW4 Sh. Shubham Bhardwaj who is the official from Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd, which deals in artificial limb. He produced the quotation for both prosthesis as demanded by the patient namely Ravinder. He exhibited the said quotation alongwith covering letter as Ex. PW2/1(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that the documents brought by him on that day did not bear his signature anywhere. He deposed that the aforesaid patient was physically examined by him. He further deposed that at the time of physical examination of patient, no examination sheet had been prepared by them. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid patient never appeared before them for his physical examination. He deposed that the aforesaid patient had never came to them after the issuance of quotation for installation of prosthesis. He further deposed that he had not brought any bifurcation sheet for both the prosthesis. He denied the suggestion that the documents brought by him on that day were false and fabricated documents.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 29 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
49. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that artificial limbs are to be provided to the petitioner and same is required to be replaced after every 5-6 years as per the documents produced by PW2. He also contended that cost of artificial limbs was Rs. 3,46,458/- as per quotation (Ex. PW2/1) given by M/s. Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. He therefore urged that appropriate compensation amount may also be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
50. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that no amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
51. After bestowing my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made on behalf of both the sides, I find substance in the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner/claimant. The condition of both lower lower limbs of the petitioner was noticed by Claims Tribunal during the course of arguments.
52. There is another reason which persuades me to accept the contention raised on behalf of claimant. In case, the argument raised on behalf of insurance company is accepted, it would lead to injustice in the sense that the cost of artificial limbs to be provided to the claimant in this Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 30 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 case, is stated to be Rs. 3,46,458/- as per quotation of M/s. Ottobock Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. and it is not one time cost, rather, said artificial limb is required to be replaced after every 5-6 years. On the contrary, no evidence has been led by the insurance company regarding no requirement of such artificial limbs to petitioner or that such artificial limbs are available at a lower rate. It goes without saying that it is a beneficial legislation enacted by our Parliament in order to compensate the victims of road accidents and to alleviate their sufferings to some extent. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that notional amount representing the cost of artificial limb required by petitioner to lead normal life, should also be awarded separately to him under this head.
53. It may be noted here that as per testimony of PW2 and documents produced by him which are part of Ex. PW2/1(colly), the life of artificial limb is about 5-6 years and it also requires annual maintenance which costs Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Presently, the age of petitioner/injured is about 48 years and the average life of a human being is about 70 years. Hence, it can be presumed that the petitioner would require replacement of artificial limb atleast five times during his life time and would also require to incur amount on its maintenance. After carefully perusing the deposition of PW1 & PW2 and keeping in view the fact that petitioner has suffered below knee amputation of right lower limb and amputation of left forefoot and consequently, he has suffered 73% permanent disability in Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 31 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 relation to his both lower limbs and the installation of prosthesis would definitely minimize the sufferings of petitioner or would help him to lead normal life, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- under this head for installation of artificial limb and its maintenance.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 2,52,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, Special diet & Rs. 80,000/-
Attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 21,46,000/-
7. Artificial limb and its maintenance Rs. 17,00,000/-
expenses Total Rs. 46,78,000/-
54. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 32 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Rather, it had given legal offer to the petitioner which was not acceptable to him. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 2/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
55. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award compensation of Rs. 46,78,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 20.05.2019(except for the period of delay w.e.f. 21.10.2021 till 10.05.2022) till the date of its realization. The petitioner shall entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum only on the amount of Rs. 29,78,000/- (excluding the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- awarded under the head of artificial limb). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 33 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 APPORTIONMENT
56. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 23.08.2022. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 41106878458 with State Bank of India, Sikandarabad Railway Road, having IFSC Code SBIN0000717 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
57. It is made clear that the entire amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- awarded under the head artificial limb shall be kept separate and the amount from the same shall be released to the petitioner only on the basis of requirement of replacement of prosthesis and its maintenance only after production of original bill and certificate of doctor in this regard by the petitioner.
58. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:-
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 34 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 35 of 37MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
59. Respondent no. 2/Go Digit General Insurance Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the aforesaid saving bank account of petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 36 of 37 MACP No. 314/19; FIR No. 346/18.; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 05.06.2024 petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2024.06.05
04:42:40 +0545
Court on 05.06.2024
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Ravindra Vs. Rajpal & Ors. Page 37 of 37