Delhi District Court
Mahender & Ors. vs . Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors. on 29 January, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH PO : MACT (SOUTHWEST
DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. 369/2016
Mahender & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010007622015
1 Smt. Anopi
W/o Sh. Mahender
2. Rohit
S/o Sh. Mahender
3. Arjun
S/o Sh. Mahender
All Residents of
232, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi
Presently residing at :
Jhuggi No. 56, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Aditya Kumar Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
2. Digvijay Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 1/66
2
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents
MACP No. 370/2016
Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010007632015
1. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Ganga Ram
2. Vidyawati
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
3. Kajal
W/o Sh. Bhim
D/o Sh. Om Prakash
4. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
All Residents of
79, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Aditya Kumar Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
2 Digvijay Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 2/66
3
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents
MACP No. 986/2016
Sonu @ Handa Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010021912015
Sonu @ Handa
S/o Sh. Subhash
R/o Jhuggi No. B10, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Aditya Kumar Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
2. Digvijay Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 3/66
4
MACP No. 987/2016
Prince Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010021922015
Prince
S/o Sh. Satish
R/o Jhuggi No. 166, Sonia Gandhi Camp,
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Aditya Kumar Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
2 Digvijay Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents
MACP No. 989/2016
Pradeep Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW0100201942015
Pradeep Kumar Solanki
S/o Sh. Ishwar
R/o Jhuggi No. 77,
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 4/66
5
Sector7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Aditya Kumar Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
2 Digvijay Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singh
R/o D92, Seema Apartment,
Plot No. 7, Sector 11,
Dwarka, New Delhi
3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Ashok Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No. 369/16 12.01.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 370/16 12.01.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 986/16 21.09.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 987/16 21.09.2015
Date of institution of MACP No. 989/16 21.09.2015
Date on which, judgment have been reserved10.01.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 29.01.2019
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
(In MACP No. 986/16 - Sonu @ Handa Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 16.12.2014
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 5/66
6
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC before Not clear from record
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 21.09.2015
(DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 21.09.2015
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 21.09.2015
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N.A
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action /
direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If No
so, whether the Designated Officer 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 No
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 29.01.2019
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 6/66
7
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No.
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open savings Yes
bank accounts (s) near their place of residence ? ( Clause
18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 17.01.2018
savings bank accounts(s) near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimants (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 06.09.2018
their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o Jhuggi No. B10, Sonia
(Clause 27 ) Gandhi Camp, Sector 7, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and SB account no.
the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause 27) 048110100110049 at Andhra
Bank, Sector6, R.K. Puram
New Delhi (IFSC Code :
ANDB0000481).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name and Account No. 37665510911 at
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the SBI, District Court Complex,
award amount is to be deposited/transferred. Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 7/66
8
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
(In MACP No. 987/16 - Prince Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 16.12.2014
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC before Not clear from record
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 21.09.2015
(DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 21.09.2015
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 21.09.2015
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N.A
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action /
direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If No
so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance
with law ( Clause 23 )
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 8/66
9
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 29.01.2019
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No.
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open savings Yes
bank accounts (s) near their place of residence ? ( Clause
18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 17.01.2018
savings bank accounts(s) near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimants (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 06.09.2018
their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o Jhuggi No. 166, Sonia
(Clause 27 ) Gandhi Camp, Sector 7, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and SB a/c no. 90092010232363 at
the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause 27) Syndicate Bank, Sector5, R.K.
Puram New Delhi (IFSC Code :
SYNB009009 ).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name and Account No. 37665510911 at
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the SBI, District Court Complex,
award amount is to be deposited/transferred. Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 9/66
10
FORM V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
(In MACP No. 989/16 - Pradeep Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.)
1 Date of the accident 16.12.2014
2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Claims Tribunal ( Clause 2)
3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Not clear from record
Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause 2)
4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr. PC before Not clear from record
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 21.09.2015
(DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal. (Clause 10)
6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance Company. 21.09.2015
(Clause 11)
7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 21.09.2015
8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? N.A
10 Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No
the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action /
direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not clear from record
Insurance company ( Clause 20 )
13 Name, address and contact number of the Designated Not clear from record
Officer of the Insurance Company ( Clause 20 )
14 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within 30 days of the
DAR? ( Clause 22 )
15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If No
so, whether the Designated Officer 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 No
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 10/66
11
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action / directions warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the N.A
Insurance Company. ( Clause 24)
18 Date of Award 29.01.2019
19 Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No.
parties? ( Clause 22)
20 Whether the claimant (s) were directed to open savings Yes
bank accounts (s) near their place of residence ? ( Clause
18)
21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 17.01.2018
savings bank accounts(s) near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction tot
he bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimants (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 06.09.2018
their savings bank account near the place of their
residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card? (Clause 18 )
23 Permanent Residential Address of the Claimant(s) R/o Jhuggi No. 77, Sonia
(Clause 27 ) Gandhi Camp, Sector 7, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi.
24. Details of savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and SB a/c no. 164410100033573
the address of the bank with IFSC Code( Clause 27) at Andhra Bank, Sector9, R.K.
Puram New Delhi (IFSC Code :
ANDB0001644 ).
25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near Yes
his place of residence ? (Clause 27)
26 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes
passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial
condition? ( Clause 27)
27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, name and Account No. 37665510911 at
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the SBI, District Court Complex,
award amount is to be deposited/transferred. Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi,
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and
MICR Code 110002483)
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 11/66
12
JUDGMENT:
Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of five cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No. 370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16 pertaining to the same road traffic accident, which took place on 14.12.2014.
The first case/petition (bearing MACP No. 369/16) as per the provisions of M.V. Act has been filed on behalf of petitionersAnop Devi & Ors. in respect of death of deceased Sanju, S/o Sh. Mahender caused in the road traffic accident on 14.12.2014.
The second case/petition (bearing MACP No.370/16) as per the provisions of M.V. Act has been filed on behalf of petitioners Om Prakash & Ors. in respect of death of deceased Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash caused in the road traffic accident on 14.12.2014.
The third connected case/DAR (bearing MACP No. 986/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa in the same road traffic accident.
The fourth connected case/DAR (bearing MACP No. 987/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Prince in the abovesaid road traffic accident.
The fifth connected case/DAR (bearing MACP No. 989/16) has been filed qua the injuries sustained by petitioner/injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki in the same road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts as made out from the abovesaid petitions/DARs are that in the night intervening 1516.12.2014 at about 1:45 A.M, Sanju. Anil, Sonu @ Handa, Prince and Pradeep Kumar Solanki were coming back to their residence after drum MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 12/66 13 beating and they had stopped TSR bearing no. DL 1RM 9747 in front of Chhabra Farm House Dwarka Link Road, Dwarka to NH8 Carriage, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kapashera and while they were in the process of sitting in the auto, the said TSR was hit by the offending vehicle (Swift car) bearing no. DL 9CAK 3354, being driven by respondent no. 1 Aditya Kumar Singh in rash and negligent manner and as a result of impact, all the above named persons sustained injuries and were taken to Artimis hospital, Dwarka New Delhi, where Sanju and Anil Kumar were declared brought dead. It is also stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and the case in this regard was registered vide FIR No.582/14 u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC at PS Kapashera.
On conclusion of the investigation, the DAR has been filed by the IO qua death of deceasedSanju and the same was clubbed with the petition (bearing MACP No. 369/16) vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed by of the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
Further, another DAR has been filed by the IO qua death of deceased Anil Kumar and the same was clubbed with the petition (bearing MACP No. 370/16) vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed by of the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
In addition to above, connected DAR (bearing MACP No. 986/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Sonu @ Handa in the same accident. Another DAR (bearing MACP No. 987/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Prince in the same accident. Further, other DAR (bearing MACP No. 989/16) has been filed by the IO in respect of the injuries sustained by petitioner/ injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki in the abovesaid accident.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of these cases, MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 13/66 14 petitioner Mahender (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No. 369/16) expired and accordingly his name was deleted from array of parties vide order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Ld.Predecessor of this court.
4. WS has been filed on behalf of R1 Aditya Kumar Singh ( driver ) and R2 Digvijay Singh (owner of offending vehicle), wherein it has been stated that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was not maintainable as there was no cause of action in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners have also not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is further stated that no accident took place by the respondent no. 1/ driver of the alleged offending vehicle no. DL 9 CAK 3354 at the time, date and place of the alleged accident. It is stated that respondent no. 1 was having a valid DL and respondent no. 2 was having valid insurance policy qua the offending vehicle with respondent no. 3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd and hence, R1 & R2 were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Further, in parawise reply, the contents of paras 1 to 7 & 19 of the petition are denied for want of knowledge and contents of paras 12 to 14, 20 to 22, 25 & 26 are stated to be matter of record. All other averments made in the petition have been denied as incorrect and it has been prayed that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it has been stated that liability, if any, of the said respondent was subject to terms, condition, exception and limitation of insurance policy and involvement and negligence of vehicle in question. It is further stated that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligence of driver of TSR MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 14/66 15 bearing no. DL 1RM 9747 and as such, respondent/ insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. It is also stated that the petition was bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties as the driver, owner and insurer of the TSR bearing no. DL 1RM 9747 have not been impleaded as parties to the present petitions.
Further, in parawise reply, the contents of paras 1 to 6 & 8 of the petition are denied for want of knowledge and contents of paras 10 to 17 are stated to be matter of record. It is stated that vehicle bearing no. DL 9 CAK 3354 was insured with respondent/ insurance company, subject to the terms and condition of the insurance policy.
6. In the present cases, since, common question of law and facts were involved in all these cases i.e petitions bearing MACP No. 369/16 (earlier MACP No. 12/15) & MACP No. 370/16 (earlier MACP No. 13/15) and DARs bearing MACP No. 986/16 (earlier MACP No. 601/DAR/15), MACP No. 987/16 (earlier MACP No. 600/DAR/15) and MACP No. 989/16 (earlier MACP No. 598/DAR/15), the common issues were framed and the same were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case bearing MACP No. 369/16 (earlier MACP No. 12/15) as "Leading Case" vide order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Ld.Predecessor of this court.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the abovesaid cases on 21.07.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court :
ISSUES :
1. Whether Sanju S/o Mahender & Anil S/o Om Prakash sustained fatal injuries and Pradeep, Prince & Sonu @ Handa sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.12.2014 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 15/66 16 (car) no. DL 9CAK 3354, being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
7. In support of their case, petitioners have examined PW1 Om Prakash (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No.370/16), Smt. Anopi (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No.369/16), PW3 Ct. Rakesh Kumar, Police Line Alwar, Rajasthan, PW4 Narayan Dass, Office Asstt, SP, District Alwar, Rajasthan, PW5 Sonu @ Handa (petitioner/ injured in MACP No.986/16) & PW6 Prince (petitioner/injured in MACP No. 987/16) and thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners.
8. In RE, R1 & R2 have examined R1W1 Aditya Kumar Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) and thereafter RE on behalf of R1 & R2 was closed. Further, no RE has been led on behalf of R3/ insurance company and accordingly RE on behalf of the said respondent was closed vide order dated 06.09.2018.
9. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. counsels for the petitioners and R3/insurance company and have carefully gone through record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence led by the petitioners in support of their case and RE led on behalf of R1 & R2. I have also carefully perused written submissions as well as case law filed on behalf of the petitioners and respondents.
It is pertinent to mention here that arguments have not been address in this case on behalf of R1 Aditya Kumar Singh and R2 Digvijay Singh, despite MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 16/66 17 opportunity being given.
10. The issuewise findings are as under :
11. ISSUE No. 1Whether Sanju S/o Mahender & Anil S/o Om Prakash sustained fatal injuries and Pradeep, Prince & Sonu @ Handa sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.12.2014 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (car) no. DL 9CAK 3354, being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW5 Sonu (petitioner/injured in MACP No. 986/16), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW5/A), wherein it has been stated that in the night of 15.12.2014, he alongwith his friends Kapil, Prince, Sanju, Anil and Pradeep were returning after drumbeating and at about 1:45 to 2:00 AM, they had come to the road and stopped the auto and three persons had sit in the auto and the remaining were standing on the footpath, when Swfit car bearing no. DL 9CAK 3354 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto and auto turned turtle and all the persons sitting in the auto and standing outside were injured. PW5 further deposed that in the meantime, a bus came from the opposite side and took all of them to Artimis hospital, where they were given medical treatment and two of them namely Sanju and Anil expired in the said road accident. PW5 also deposed that the driver of the vehicle no. DL 9CAK 3354 been bit cautious, the said accident could have been avoided and the said accident has been caused purely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of abovesaid MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 17/66 18 offending vehicle.
In respect of this issue no. 1, the petitioners have also examined PW6 Prince (petitioner/injured in MACP No. 987/16) and he has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW6/A) and contents of the said affidavit are almost on the similar lines as that of affidavit (Ex. PW5/A) of PW5 Sonu.
The important fact is that these witnesses i.e. PW5 Sonu and PW6 Prince were cross examined by the respondents, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
In his cross examination by Ld counsel for R1 & R2, PW5 denied the suggestion that he did not sustain any injury in the accident. PW5 further stated that there was no smog at the time of accident and he was standing by the side of auto rickshaw (TSR) at the time of accident and there was no traffic at the time of accident and no truck had passed at the spot at the time of accident. PW5 denied the suggestion that accident was caused due to the negligence of the truck. PW5 also denied the suggestion that accident was not caused due to negligence of Swift car and the same have been planted in this case in order to claim compensation from the insurance company with collusion of police or that he was deposing falsely.
In his cross examination by Ld counsel for R1 & R2, PW6 denied the suggestion that he did not sustain any injury in the accident nor had he taken any treatment from any hospital. PW6 further stated that there was no smog at the time of accident and he was standing by the side of auto rickshaw (TSR) at the time of accident and Sanju, Pradeep and Anil were sitting inside the TSR. PW6 stated that there was no traffic at the time of accident and no truck had passed at the spot at the time of accident and he denied the suggestion that accident was caused due to the negligence of the truck. PW6 also denied the suggestion that accident was not caused due to negligence of Swift car and the same have been planted in this case in MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 18/66 19 order to claim compensation from the insurance company with collusion of police or that he was deposing falsely. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Sanju and Anil Kumar sustained fatal injuries and died and injured Sonu @ Handa, Prince and Pradeep sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 15.12.2014 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Swift car) no. DL 9CAK 3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh, owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
12. ISSUE No. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue in MACP No. 369/16 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioners have examined PW2 Anop (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No.369/16), who has filed her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that her son Sanju died in a road traffic accident on 16.12.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swift car bearing no. DL9CAK3354. PW2 further stated that deceased Sanju was engaged in the work of drum beatings and in mason work and used to earn Rs. 15,000/ p.m and his income has been rising progressively and he MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 19/66 20 was having bright future. PW2 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/4.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceasedSanju sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.12.2014 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Swift Car ) no. DL 9CAK3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh, owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such , petitioner no. 1 Anopi Devi, being the mother/LR of the deceasedSanju have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident. It is pertinent to note here that Sh. Mahender (father/LR of deceased Sanju) expired during the pendency of this case and accordingly his name was deleted from array of parties vide order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Further , petitioner no. 2 Rohit and petitioner no. 3 Arjun are brothers of the deceased Sanju and were not the LRs or would not have been dependent upon deceased and as such, they shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of death of Sanju in the accident in this case.
13. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner no.1 Smt.Anopi (mother/LRs of deceased Sanju ) is ascertained as under:
In the present case, as per the MLC pertaining to Artemis Hospital, deceased Sanju was aged about 16 years and as per the postmortem report pertaining to DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, deceased Sanju was aged about 18 years at the time of his death in the accident in this case on 16.12.2014.
The law relating to the grant of compensation in case of the death of children up to 18 years of age in a road traffic accident has been laid down by the MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 20/66 21 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram ( MAC APP. No. 554/2010)" and other related appeals .
In the aforesaid case titled as "Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram ( MAC APP. No. 554/2010)", it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that : "Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings ( in future or present ) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence,this having regard, inter alia , to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, the notional income of nonearning persons ( Rs.15,000/ p.a) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from
14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child , and taken into account after it is inflation corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflationcorrection, the financial year of 19971998 shall be treated as the " base year" and the value of the national income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner: Rs. 15,000/ x A /331 [wherein the figure of Rs. 15,000/ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation correction; 'A' represents the CII for the financial year in which MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 21/66 22 the cause of action arose ( i.e the accident / death occurred); and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the 'base year']
(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income ( i.e inflationcorrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of one third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate ( hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi) For children of the agegroup of more than 10 years upto 15 years , the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii) For children of the agegroup of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite nonpecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K.Malik V. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest ( if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 22/66 23
14. In the present case, the death of minor deceased namely-Sanju has occurred in the accident on 16.12.2014. Therefore, the CII for the financial year 20142015 (i.e 1024) would apply. Further, the minor deceased Sanju was about 1618 years of age at the time of accident and thus, the computation is to be made on the multiplier of '18' .
In view of the above, the notional income after inflation comes to as under:
Rs. 15,000/ x 1024/331= Rs.46,404 / , rounded of to Rs. 47,000/. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the pecuniary loss to the estate is calculated as :
Rs. 47,000 x 2/3 x18= Rs. 5,63,999/, rounded of as Rs 5,64,000/. Adding similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages , the total compensation in this case comes to as under:
Rs. 5,64,000 x 2= Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only).
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to petitioner no.1 Smt. Anopi (mother /LR of deceased Sanju ) in the present case.
15. INTEREST In the present case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 11,28,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.1.2015 till MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 23/66 24 realization.
16. RELIEF IN MACP No. 369/16 ( Smt. Anopi Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 12.1.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner-Smt. Anopi ( mother/LR of deceasedSanju) and against the respondents .
17. Further, the statement of petitioner Smt Anopi ( mother /LR of the deceased Sanju in MACP No. 369/16) regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner / LR of the deceased & having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount of FDR Amount
1. Smt.Anopi Mother Rs. 11,28,000/ Rs. 1,28,000/ Rs. 10,00,000/ be kept in 100 FDRs of Rs.
10,000/ each for the period from one month to 100 months in the name of petitioner Anopi with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 24/66 25 Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
18. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 370/16 was upon the petitioners therein and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioners have examined PW1 Om Prakash (petitioner no. 1 in MACP No.370/16), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that his son Anil Kumar died in a road traffic accident on 16.12.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Swift car bearing no. DL9CAK3354. PW1 further stated that deceased Anil Kumar was matriculate and he used to take tuition classes and also used to go for drum beatings and was earning about Rs. 25,000/ p.m and his income has been rising progressively and he was having bright future. PW2 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/18.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that deceasedAnil Kumar sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident dated 16.12.2014 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Swift Car ) no. DL 9CAK3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh, owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such ,petitioner no. 1 Om Prakash , being the father/LR and petitioner no. 2 Vidyawati , being mother/LR of the deceased Anil Kumar have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the abovesaid accident. It is pertinent to note here that petitioner no. 3 Kajal is the sister of deceased and petitioner no.4 Sunil Kumar is the brother of deceased Anil Kumar and they were not the LR or would not have been MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 25/66 26 dependent upon deceased and as such, they shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of death of Anil Kumar in the accident in this case.
19. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner no.1 Om Prakash (father /LR of deceased Anil Kumar ) and petitioner no.2 Vidyawati (mother/LR of deceased Anil Kumar ) is ascertained as under:
In the present case, as per his educational certificates , the date of birth of deceased Anil Kumar was 01.1.1999 and as such , he was aged about 16 years at the time of his death in the accident in this case on 16.12.2014.
The law relating to the grant of compensation in case of the death of children in a road traffic accident has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram ( MAC APP. No. 554/2010)" and other related appeals .
In the aforesaid case titled as "Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram ( MAC APP. No. 554/2010)", it has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that : "Subject to all other requisite conditions being fulfilled, for the foregoing reasons, in order to bring about consistency and uniformity in approach to the issue, it is held that claims for compensation on account of death of children shall be determined as follows:
(i) Till such time as the law is amended by the legislature or the Central Government notifies the amendment to the Second Schedule in exercise of the enabling power vested in it by Section 163A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and except in cases wherein the prospects of employability and earnings ( in future or present ) of the deceased child are proved by cogent and irrefutable evidence,this having regard, inter alia , to the academic record or training in special talents or skills, for computing the pecuniary damages on account of the loss to estate, MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 26/66 27 the notional income of nonearning persons ( Rs.15,000/ p.a) as specified in the Second Schedule (brought in force from 14.11.1994), shall be assumed to be the income of the deceased child , and taken into account after it is inflation corrected with the help of Cost Inflation Index (CII) as notified by the Government of India from year to year under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying the formula indicated hereinafter.
(ii) For inflationcorrection, the financial year of 19971998 shall be treated as the " base year" and the value of the national income relevant to the date of cause of action shall be computed in the following manner: Rs. 15,000/ x A /331 [wherein the figure of Rs. 15,000/ represents the notional income specified in the second schedule requiring inflation correction; 'A' represents the CII for the financial year in which the cause of action arose ( i.e the accident / death occurred); and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the 'base year']
(iii) After arriving at an appropriate figure of the present equivalent value of the notional income ( i.e inflationcorrected amount), it shall be rounded off to a figure in next thousands of rupees.
(iv) The amount of notional income thus calculated shall be reduced to twothird, the deduction to the extent of one third being towards personal & living expenses of the deceased, the balance taken as the annual loss to estate ( hereinafter also referred to as "the multiplicand").
(v) For assessment of the pecuniary damages on account of the death of children upto the age of 10 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated, capitalizing the multiplicand, by applying the multiplier of ten (10).
(vi) For children of the agegroup of more than 10 years upto 15 MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 27/66 28 years , the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of fifteen (15).
(vii) For children of the agegroup of more than 15 years but less than 18 years, the loss to estate shall be calculated by applying the multiplier of eighteen (18).
(viii) After the pecuniary loss to estate has been worked out in the manner indicated above, an amount equivalent to the amount thus computed shall be added to it as the composite nonpecuniary damages taking care of not only the conventional heads but also towards future prospects as awarded in R.K.Malik V. Kiran Pal (2009) 14 SCC 1.
(ix) The final sum thus arrived at, appropriately rounded off, if so required to the nearest ( if not next) thousands of rupees, shall be awarded as compensation for the death of the child.
20. In the present case, the death of minor deceased namely -Anil Kumar has occurred in the accident on 16.12.2014. Therefore, the CII for the financial year 20142015 (i.e 1024) would apply. Further, the minor deceased Anil Kumar was about 16 years of age at the time of accident and thus, the computation is to be made on the multiplier of '18' .
In view of the above, the notional income after inflation comes to as under:
Rs. 15,000/ x 1024/331= Rs.46,404 / , rounded of to Rs. 47,000/. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, the pecuniary loss to the estate is calculated as :
Rs. 47,000 x 2/3 x18= Rs. 5,63,999/, rounded of as Rs 5,64,000/. Adding similar amount towards composite non pecuniary damages , the total compensation in this case comes to as under:
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 28/66 29 Rs. 5,64,000 x 2= Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only).
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to petitioner no.1 Om Prakash (father /LR of deceased Anil Kumar ) and petitioner no.2 - Vidyawati ( mother/LR of deceased) in the present case.
21. INTEREST In the present case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 11,28,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.1.2015 till realization.
22. RELIEF IN MACP No. 370/16 ( Om Prakash Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 12.1.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner-no.1 Om Prakash (father /LR of deceased Anil Kumar ) and petitioner no.2 - Vidyawati ( mother/LR of deceased) and against the respondents .
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 29/66 30
23. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e Rs. 11,28,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs, Twenty Eight Thousand only) shall be apportioned amongst the abovesaid LRs of the deceasedAnil Kumar in the following manner with proportionate interest .
S. No. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount
1. Petitioner no.1 - Om Prakash ( Father) Rs. 3,00,000/
2. Petitioner no.2 Smt. Vidyawati ( Mother) Rs. 8,28,000/ Total Rs. 11,28,000/
24. Further, the statement of petitioner no.1 Om Prakash (father /LR of deceased Anil Kumar ) and petitioner no.2 - Vidyawati ( mother/LR of deceased) in MACP No. 370/16) regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner / LR of the deceasedAnil Kumar & having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No Name Status Amount of Release Amount of FDR Award Amount
1. Om Prakash Father Rs. 3,00,000/ Rs. 30,000/ Rs. 2.7 lacs be kept in 54 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 54 months in the name of petitioner no.1Om Prakash with cumulative interest.
2. Vidyawati Mother Rs. 8,28,000/ Rs. 78,000/ Rs. 7.5 lacs be kept in 75 FDRs of Rs. 10,000/ each for the period from one month to 75 months MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 30/66 31 in the name of petitioner no.2 Vidyawati with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
25. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 986/16 was upon the petitioner/injuredSonu @ Handa and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa has examined himself as PW5 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW5/A), wherein it has been stated that he was working as a drum beater and in the night of 15.12.2014 he alongwith his other friends was returning after drum beating at about 1:45 to 2:00 AM, they had come to the road and stopped the auto and three persons had sit in the auto and the remaining were standing on the footpath, when Swfit car bearing no. DL 9CAK 3354 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto and auto turned turtle and all the persons sitting in the auto and standing outside were injured. PW5 further deposed that he sustained grievous injuries and his clavicle bone of left side was broken .PW5 deposed that he was working as drum beater at the time of accident and was earning about Rs. 15,000/ p.m. PW5 further deposed that he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000/ each on attendant and special diet, Rs.15,000/ on treatment and Rs.10,000/ on transportation. PW5 has also relied upon the document i.e his MLC Ex. PW5/A. In the present case, from the material and evidence record, it is clear that MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 31/66 32 petitioner/injuredSonu @ Handa has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. no. DL 9CAK 3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh , owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such,petitioner/injuredSonu @ Handa and has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa is ascertained under the following heads :
26. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record pertaining to Artemis Hospital, New Delhi, petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case.
Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
27. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa has undergone treatment at Artemis Hospital , Delhi for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case .
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/ injured Sonu has received almost his entire treatment from the Artemis Hospital and no medical bills qua expenses incurred by him on his treatment or medicines, have been placed on record. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injuredSonu shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in this case.
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 32/66 33
28. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Sonu has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 50,000/ on special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ ( Rupees Five Thousand only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
29. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that he was working as a drum beater and was earning Rs. 15,000/ p.m at the time of accident, however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages during the relevant period (16.12.2014) i.e Rs.8,632/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 33/66 34 petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,632/ x 2= Rs. 17,264/ (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) under the head ' Loss of Income'.
30. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/ on attendant, however neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injuredSonu has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and he remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about two months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/ injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita" (reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 34/66 35 family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000 X 2 = Rs. 6,000/ (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'.
31. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
32. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the enjoyment of MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 35/66 36 life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 18 years of age at the time of accident and has has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
33. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injuredSonu is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment
2. Conveyance Rs. 5,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of Income Rs. 17,264/
5. Attendant Rs. 6,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 40,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 20,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,13,264/ rounded of to Rs. 1,14,000/ MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 36/66 37
34. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 1,14,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
35. RELIEFIN MACP No. 986/16 ( Sonu @ Handa Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.1,14,000 / (Rupees One Lakh, Fourteen Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 21.9.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Sonu @ Handa and against the respondents .
36. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 16.12..2014
ii). Name of the injured : Sonu @ Handa
iii). Age of the injured : 18 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 8,632/ p.m MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 37/66 38
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Artemis Hospital by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Rs. 6,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 17,264/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 38/66 39
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 1,13,264/ rounded of to Rs. 1,14,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,14,000// + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 02.3.2019 ( Clause 31)
37. Further,the statement of petitioner/injuredSonu @ Handa regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case , the award amount shall be distributed as follows: MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 39/66 40 S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Sonu @ Injured Rs. 1,14,000/ Rs. 14,000/ Rs. 1,00,000/ be kept in Handa 20 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 20 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
38. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 987/16 was upon the petitioner/injuredPrince and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioner/ injured Prince has examined himself as PW6 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW6/A), wherein it has been stated that he was working as a drum beater and in the night of 15.12.2014 he alongwith his other friends was returning after drum beating at about 1:45 to 2:00 AM, they had come to the road and stopped the auto and three persons had sit in the auto and the remaining were standing on the footpath, when Swfit car bearing no. DL 9CAK 3354 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto and auto turned turtle and all the persons sitting in the auto and standing outside were injured. PW6 further deposed that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident in this case. PW6 deposed that he was working as drum beater at the time of accident and was earning about Rs. 15,000/ p.m. PW6 further deposed that he had spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/ each on attendant and special diet and Rs.10,000/ each on treatment and transportation. PW6 has also relied upon MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 40/66 41 the document i.e his MLC Ex. PW6/A. In the present case, from the material and evidence record, it is clear that petitioner/injuredPrince has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. no. DL 9CAK 3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh , owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, petitioner/injured Prince and has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Prince is ascertained under the following heads :
39. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record pertaining to Artemis Hospital, New Delhi, petitioner/injured Prince has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case.
Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
40. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Prince has undergone treatment at Artemis Hospital , Delhi for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case .
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/ injured Prince has received almost his entire treatment from the Artemis Hospital and no medical bills qua expenses incurred by him on his treatment or medicines, MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 41/66 42 have been placed on record. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured Prince shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in this case.
41. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Prince has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent Rs. 10,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 40,000/ on special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ ( Rupees Five Thousand only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
42. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that he was working as a drum beater and was earning Rs. 15,000/ p.m at the time of accident, however, MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 42/66 43 no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages during the relevant period (16.12.2014) i.e Rs.8,632/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day. Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about two months for the petitioner/injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,632/ x 2= Rs. 17,264/ (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) under the head 'Loss of Income'.
43. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 40,000/ on attendant, however neither the said attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured Prince has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and he remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about two months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/ injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita" ( reported as AIR 1981 MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 43/66 44 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000 X 2 = Rs. 6,000/ (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'.
44. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only ) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 44/66 45
45. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 18 years of age at the time of accident and has has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
46. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Prince is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment
2. Conveyance Rs. 5,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of Income Rs. 17,264/
5. Attendant Rs. 6,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 40,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 20,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,13,264/ rounded of to Rs. 1,14,000/ MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 45/66 46
47. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 1,14,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
48. RELIEF IN MACP No. 987/16 ( Prince Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.1,14,000 / (Rupees One Lakh, Fourteen Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 21.9.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured- Prince and against the respondents .
49. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 16.12..2014
ii). Name of the injured : Prince
iii). Age of the injured : 18 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 8,632/ p.m MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 46/66 47
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Artemis Hospital by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Rs. 6,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 17,264/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 47/66 48
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 1,13,264/ rounded of to Rs. 1,14,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,14,000// + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured.
21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 02.3.2019 ( Clause 31)
50. Further,the statement of petitioner/injuredPrince regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case , the award amount shall be distributed as follows: MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 48/66 49 S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Prince Injured Rs. 1,14,000/ Rs. 14,000/ Rs. 1,00,000/ be kept in 20 FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 20 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
51. The onus to prove this issue no.2 in MACP No. 989/16 was upon the petitioner/injuredPradeep and in order to discharge the said onus, the said petitioner/ injuredPradeep has not led any evidence, however in view of the material on record, it is evident that petitioner/injured Pradeep has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. DL 9CAK 3354, which was being driven by R1 Aditya Kumar Singh , owned by R2 Digvijay Singh and insured with R3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, petitioner/injured Pradeep and has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Pradeep is ascertained under the following heads :
52. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record pertaining to Artemis Hospital, MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 49/66 50 New Delhi, petitioner/injured Prince has sustained grievous/dangerous injuries in the accident in the instant case.
Further the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
53. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Pradeep has undergone treatment at Artemis Hospital , Delhi for the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case .
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/ injured Pradeep has received his entire treatment from the Artemis Hospital and no medical bills qua expenses incurred by him on his treatment or medicines, have been placed on record. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured Pradeep shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in this case.
54. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Pradeep has sustained grievous/dangerous injuries in the accident in the instant case. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident, however no evidence in this regard has been lead on behalf of petitioner/injured in this case. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 50/66 51 Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/ ( Rupees Five Thousand only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
55. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured Pradeep has not placed on record any evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding his employment or income at the time of accident and in absence thereof, petitioner/injuredPradeep shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in the instant case.
56. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/ injured Pradeep has not led any evidence qua expenses incurred by him on attendant. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured Pradeep shall not be entitled to any compensation under this head in this case.
57. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 51/66 52
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has has sustained grievous/dangerous injuries in the accident in the instant case and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
58. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 17 years of age at the time of accident and has has sustained grievous injuries in the accident in the instant case and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 52/66 53 compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
59. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injured Prince is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment
2. Conveyance Rs. 5,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 10,000/
4. Loss of Income
5. Attendant
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 40,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 20,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 85,000/
60. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 85,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 53/66 54 realization.
61. RELIEFIN MACP No. 989/16 ( Pradeep Vs. Aditya Kumar Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs.85,000/ (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 21.9.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/ injured-Pradeep and against the respondents .
62. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 16.12..2014
ii). Name of the injured : Pradeep
iii). Age of the injured : 17 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured :
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Artemis Hospital by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 54/66 55
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 10,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 10,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs.85,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 55/66 56
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 85,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.9.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured. 21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 02.3.2019 ( Clause 31)
63. Further, the statement of petitioner/injuredPradeep regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case , the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Pradeep Injured Rs. 85,000/ Rs. 5,000/ Rs. 80,000/ be kept in 20 FDRs of Rs. 4,000/ each for the period from one month to 20 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 56/66 57 Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
64. LIABILITY ( In all the cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No. 370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16) The offending vehicle bearing no. DL9CAK3354 was being driven by respondent No.1Aditya Kumar Singh, owned by respondent no.2Digvijay Singh and was insured with respondent no.3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd being the 'principal tort feasor', shall be liable to pay the awarded amount in all these cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No. 370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16)).
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
65. In all these cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No.370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16) , the award amounts shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no.3/ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
66. In MACP No. 369/16, petitioner Smt. Anopi has stated that she is MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 57/66 58 having a SB Account No. 048110100109478 at Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ANDB0000481) and it is being requested on her behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 048110100109478 of petitioner Smt. Anopi at Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitionerSmt. Anopi, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner Smt. Anopi .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner Smt. Anopi without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner Smt. Anopi .
The abovesaid Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner Anopi MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 58/66 59 and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner Smt. Anopi .
Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner Smt. Anopi to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
67. In MACP No. 370/16, petitioner no.1 Om Prakash has stated that he is having a SB Account No.173601000022359 at Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: IOBA0001736) and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 173601000022359 of petitioner no.1 Om Prakash at Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner no.1 Om Prakash, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.1.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 59/66 60 shall be provided to petitioner no.1 Om Prakash .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner no.1Sh. Om Prakash without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no.1Sh. Om Prakash .
The abovesaid Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner no.1Sh. Om Prakash and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no.1Sh. Om Prakash .
Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no.1Sh. Om Prakash to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
68. In MACP No. 370/16, petitioner no.2Smt. Vidyawati has stated that she is having a SB Account No. 173601000023333 at Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: IOBA0001736) and it is being requested on her behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 173601000023333 of petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati at Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 60/66 61 Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner no.2Smt. Vidyawati, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.2.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati .
The abovesaid Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and /or debit card to the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Vidyawati and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati .
Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no. 2Smt. Vidyawati to withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 61/66 62
69. In MACP No. 986/16, petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 048110100110049 at Andhra Bank, Sec.6 R.K.Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ANDB0000481) and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 048110100110049 of petitioner /injured Sonu @ Handa at Andhra Bank, Sec.6 R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Andhra Bank, Sec.6 R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 62/66 63 petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa .
The abovesaid Andhra Bank, Sec.6 R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner /injured Sonu @ Handa and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner /injured Sonu @ Handa.
Andhra Bank, Sec.6 R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner/injured Sonu @ Handa to withdraw money from his above said saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
70. In MACP No. 987/16, petitioner/injured Prince has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 90092010232363 at Syndicate Bank, Sec.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: SYNB009009) and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 90092010232363 of petitioner /injured Prince at Syndicate Bank, Sec.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sec.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner/injured Prince , as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 63/66 64 aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner/injured Prince .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured Prince without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner/injured Prince .
The abovesaid Syndicate Bank, Sec.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner /injured Prince and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner /injured Prince .
Syndicate Bank, Sec.5, R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner/injured Prince to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
71. In MACP No. 989/16, petitioner/injuredPradeep Kumar Solanki has stated that he is having a SB Account No.164410100033573 at Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (IFSC Code: ANDB0001644) and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 164410100033573 of petitioner /injured Pradeep MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 64/66 65 Kumar Solanki at Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner/injured Prince , as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner/injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner/injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki .
The abovesaid Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner /injured Pradeep and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner /injured Pradeep Kumar Solanki .
Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner/injured Pradeep to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 65/66 66 bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
72. The R3/Insurance company shall inform the petitioners in all these cases bearing MACP No. 369/16, MACP No. 370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16 as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi , Manager, Andhra Bank, Sec.6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi,Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, Sec.12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, Manager,Syndicate Bank, Sec.5,R.K.Puram, New Delhi& Manager, Andhra Bank, Sec.9, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, for information / compliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading/ main case bearing MACP No. 369/16 and the copies thereof be placed in the files of connected cases bearing MACP No. 370/16, MACP No. 986/16, MACP No. 987/16 & MACP No. 989/16.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare the separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 02.3.2019.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open (Paramjit Singh)
Court on 29.1.2019) PO, MACT (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
29.1.2019
MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 66/66 67 MACP Nos.369/16, 370/16, 986/16, 987/16 989/16 Anopi & Ors. Vs. Aditya Kr.& Ors. 67/66