Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh W/O Sh. Parduman vs U.P. State Road Transport Corpn on 26 August, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF AMIT BANSAL : PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
(NORTH WEST DISTRICT) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 5017216
MACT No. : 879/07
UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0053352009
Smt. Kamlesh W/o Sh. Parduman
R/o RZB9, SectorC, Bhagwati Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi. .....(Petitioner)
Versus
1. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn,
Govt. of U.P Through its Secretary,
Transport Department.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh
through its Secretary, Lucknow, UP
3. U.P. Roadways , Baraut Depot,
District Baghpat, UP
Through its Depot Manager
4. Sh. Dheer Singh, S/o Sh. Badam Singh
R/o VPO Chigrawali, Distt. Buland Sahar, UP
... Driver
5. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd.
DRO1, 88, Janpath New Delhi
.... Respondents.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 1 of 29 2 Other Details:
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.01.2007
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 26.08.2017
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2017
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN CLAUSE 29 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJEST TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014
1. Date of Accident Intervening night of 08/09.04.2006 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the investigation No provision of DAR officer to the Claims Tribunal was there at that (Clause 2) time. Moreover, it is an out station accident.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 2 of 29 3
3. Date of Intimation of the accident by the investigation officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal.
(Clause 10)
6. Date of service of DAR on Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause
9. If not, state deficiencies in the DAR
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed with DAR?
(Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 3 of 29 4
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company (Clause
19)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company (Clause 19)
14. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 21)
15. Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability?
If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law (Clause 22)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of Designated Officer of the Insurance company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause
23)
18. Date of the Award 26.08.2017 MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 4 of 29 5
19. Whether the award was passed Award on merits of with the consent of the parties? the case (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant (s) Yes.
examined at the time of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition? (Clause 26)
21. Whether the photographs Yes.
specimen signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause
26)
22. Mode of disbursement of the As per award. award amount to the claimant
(s). (Clause 28)
23. Next Date for compliance of the As per award. award (Clause 30) Judgment
2. The petition under sections 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the petitioner/injured namely, Smt. Kamlesh, wherein she has prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/ alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum be awarded in her MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 5 of 29 6 favour from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the said amount.
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that in the intervening night of 08/09.04.2006 at about 3:30 am, the petitioner alongwith her husband were traveling in a U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP15R9924 i.e the offending vehicle which at the relevant time was being driven by R4 rashly and negligently. It is further stated that petitioner as well as other passengers had several times asked the driver to drive the vehicle slowly but the respondent no. 4 did not pay any heed. It is further stated that when the offending vehicle reached near Vardhman police Chowki within the jurisdiction of P.S. Muradnagar, respondent no. 4 struck the offending vehicle against a truck which was going ahead of it and due to the said impact the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries on her body. The petitioner was firstly removed to Mohan Nagar Hospital and thereafter she was taken by her husband to the G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi where she had undergone number of operations and was admitted in the hospital for quite long time. It has further been mentioned in the petition that at the time of MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 6 of 29 7 accident the petitioner was a housewife aged about 47 years. It has been stated that the respondents being the owner and driver of the said offending vehicle are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
4. As per record, no FIR has been registered in this case and only one DD No. 25 dated 09.04.2006 PS Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, UP was registered in this case.
5. As per record, in the case in hand, Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have filed written statement jointly wherein it is stated that when the bus reached near Vardhman Police Chowki at that time truck bearing No. UP12A6521 overtook the bus from the wrong side and in this process struck against the left portion of the bus and fled away from the spot. It has been stated that the respondent no. 4 who was driving the said bus removed the injured with the help of other passengers to Narender Mohan Hospital and lodged the report (DD) with the police. It has also been stated that the accident took place due to the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing no. UP12A6521. It is further stated that offending vehicle (Bus) was insured with Oriental Insurance co. hence MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 7 of 29 8 respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to petitioner.
6. As per record, Respondent no. 4 has also filed his written statement wherein he has stated that the petitioner was herself negligent, he was driving the said bus (offending vehicle) and the accident occurred due to the negligent driving on the part of driver of Truck bearing no. UP12A 6521 who has not made a party in this case. He has also stated that he was driving the said bus with due care and caution and at a normal speed.
7. Further, as per record, Oriental Insurance co/R5 has also filed a written statement and has taken various defences as available u/s 149 & 170 of M.V. Act, however, it has admitted that offending vehicle was insured vide insurance policy no. 221000/31/2006/110001 for the period 10.05.2005 to 09.05.2006 in the name of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Tehri Kothi, MG Margh, Lucknow, UP which covers the date of accident.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration vide order dt. 07.05.2008 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court:
1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries on MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 8 of 29 9 08.04.2006 (in the intervening night of 08/09.04.2006) at about 3:30 am near Vardhman Police Chowki, PS Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 4 Sh. Dheer Singh while driving UP Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP15R9924?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
9. In the case in hand, the petitioner/injured Smt. Kamlesh has examined herself as PW1 and has led her evidence by way of affidavit which has been proved as Ex.PW1/A. She has also relied upon various documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/97. The petitioner has also examined Sh. Pyara Singh, Medical Record Supervisor, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as PW2 and Sh. Hemant Tekwani, Record Keeper, GTB Hospital, Dilshsad Garden as PW3. R1 to R3 did not lead any evidence in support of their case.
Sh. Dheer Singh/R4 has examined himself as R4W1 and lead his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R4W1/A and has also relied upon the documents Ex. R4W1/1 and R4W1/2 i.e. the copy of his driving licences.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 9 of 29 10 Oriental Insurance co/R5 has also examined Sh. Suresh Ram Sr. Clerk, RTO Office Meerut, UP as R5W1 and Sh. Parmod Kumar, Junior Assistant, RTO Aligarh , UP as R5W2. The record would show that R5W1 only partly examined in chief on 18.07.2016 and only examination in chief of R5W2 was recorded on 18.07.2016 and his cross examination was deferred. The record would show that the testimony of R5W1 and R5W2 was not completed by R5 as a result of which, the said witnesses remained only partly examined and the other parties including the petitioner did not get any opportunity to cross examine them. In the said circumstances, the incomplete testimony of R5W1 and R5W2 cannot be read for any purposes either in favour of R5 or against other parties and any document sought to be proved by R5W1 and R5W2 in their partial testimony can also be not read in evidence and any such document is accordingly de exhibited.
Insurance co./R5 has, however, examined Ms. Neelam Rani, Assistant, Oriental Insurance co. R5W3 who has deposed to the effect that the offending vehicle (bus) was insured for the period 10.05.2005 to 09.05.2006 MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 10 of 29 11 vide insurance policy Ex. R5W3/1. Legal notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle through counsel has been proved as Ex. R5W3/2 and the corresponding postal receipts have been proved as Ex. R5W3/3 to R5W3/5. She deposed that service of the summons was effected through Sh. Pritish Guha Sirkar and his affidavit is Ex. R5W3/6.
10. I have heard and the arguments addressed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, ld counsel for respondents and have also perused the written submissions, filed on behalf of the Insurance co./R5 I have also perused the record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the subsequent paragraphs.
11. Issue wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 In the case in hand, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and has filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein she has deposed on the lines of her claim petition. She has proved her medical treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/89. Copy of DD entry is mark A, PS Muradnagar, UP. The copy of ration card and voter ID card is proved as MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 11 of 29 12 Ex. PW1/94 to Ex. PW1/96.
The petitioner/PW1 has deposed to the effect that on 09.04.2006 at about 3:30 am (night), the petitioner alongwith her husband were traveling in U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration no. UP15R9924 i.e the offending vehicle from Haridwar to Delhi which at the relevant time was being driven by R4 rashly and negligently. It has further been deposed that petitioner as well as other passengers had several times asked the driver to drive the vehicle slowly but the respondent no. 4 did not pay any heed. It has been deposed that when the offending vehicle reached near Vardhman police Chowki within the jurisdiction of P.S. Muradnagar, respondent no. 4, while driving the bus at a high speed could not control the steering and struck the offending vehicle against a truck with a great force and due to said impact the petitioner suffered multiple injuries including fractures on her body. She deposed that she suffered grievous injuries on her left side mouth, on right side from mouth to ear and number of stitches were applied on her face upto left ear. She has deposed that she also received fractures of clavicle spine, head and other multiple grievous injuries.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 12 of 29 13 She further deposed that her teeth were also dis balanced, some of the portion near her left ear had been cut off and plastic surgery operation was carried out due to which she was facing difficulty in chewing the day to day meals and also experiencing in difficulty in hearing. The petitioner was firstly removed to Mohan Nagar Hospital and thereafter petitioner was taken by her husband to the G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi. Petitioner remained admitted at GTB Hospital, Delhi upto 25.04.2006 and after her discharge she was also taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for treatment and from their to Jeevan Jyoti Nursing.
She also deposed that the matter was referred to PS Murad Nagar, UP by the driver of the bus himself i.e. R4 wherein he mentioned that number of persons had suffered injuries, however, only DD entry mark A was registered in that regard.
R1 to R4 did not crossexamine PW1 and her cross examination on their behalf was nil, opportunity given, therefore, R1 to R4 shall be deemed to have admitted the abovesaid testimony of PW1/petitioner regarding the manner in which the case accident was caused by R4 by MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 13 of 29 14 driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
PW1 has placed on record the copy of DD entry which is mark A which was lodged on the statement of driver Sh. Dheer Singh/R4. The said fact has also come in the cross examination of R4W1 (R4) as conducted by ld counsel for the petitioner wherein he has interalia deposed that the DD entry was lodged by him at P.S. Muradnagar on 09.04.2006. He has also admitted that the passengers tickets Ex. PW1/90 to Ex. PW1/93 pertain to U.P. Roadways. R4W1 further admitted in his cross examination that when the bus reach near Vardhman Police Chowki within the jurisdiction of PS Murad Nagar, UP then it met with an accident due to which number of passengers had sustained injuries and that the petitioner and her husband were also traveling in the bus on that day.
PW1 was also cross examined on behalf of ld counsel for Oriental Insurance co./R5 but nothing has come on record in the said examination to discredit the case of petitioner.
There is thus nothing on record to suggest that R4 MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 14 of 29 15 did not cause the said accident in the manner as deposed by the petitioner and R4 has also admitted the fact of accident in his cross examination as conducted by ld counsel for petitioner.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kaushalya Devi, IV(2014) ACC 701(DB)(All.) as decided on 10.04.2014 to the effect that no adverse inference can be drawn against the claimant's case for failure of the police to investigate the matter and even if FIR has not been lodged regarding the accident, a claim petition can be considered by the Tribunal and compensation can be awarded. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also correctly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case titled as Anbazhagan Vs. V. Shankar, 2014 ACJ 469 as decided on 15.10.2012 to the effect that failure to get FIR registered is not fatal to the claim petition and that the registration of the offence and police investigation is not a condition precedent for awarding the claim under the MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 15 of 29 16 Motor Vehicles Act and the claim could be awarded if the same is proved by admissible evidence with all probabilities. It was also held that the claimants are entitled for compensation on proving the facts and circumstances regarding such accident and the factum of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. The above said judgments are squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. In the present case also by the testimony of the petitioner/PW1 she has proved the case accident and the injuries suffered by her in it as a result of rash and negligent driving by R4 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record and abovesaid discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. In these circumstances, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused by R4 while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the abovesaid date, place and time. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 16 of 29 17
12.Issue No.2 In view of findings on issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
Petitioner has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that in the case accident, she sustained injuries on her left side of mouth from mouth to ear and number of stitches were applied on her face upto left ear, the teeth were also disbalanced, some of the portion near the left ear had been cut off due to which she was facing difficulty in chewing day to day meals and that she also received fracture of clavicle bone, head and other multiple grievous injuries on her body. She has further deposed that she was firstly taken to Narinder Mohan Hospital and after that she was removed to GTB hospital where she remained admitted upto 25 th April, 2006. She also deposed that thereafter she took treatment from Sir Ganga Hospital and Jeevan Jyoti Nursing Home. She has deposed that she had incurred the amount of Rs. 70,000/ on her treatment. The entire treatment record including medical bills have been proved as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/89. Petitioner has also MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 17 of 29 18 examined Sh. Pyara Singh, Medical Record Supervisor, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi as PW2 who has proved the original admission record of petitioner and the photocopy of the same is proved as Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 08.03.2008 and was discharged on the same day, her ear was operated in the hospital and their hospital received total payment of Rs. 13,822/ for her treatment. Further, she has also examined Sh. Hemant Tekwani, Record Keeper, GTB hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi as PW3 who also brought the treatment record of petitioner and has deposed that petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 13.04.2006 and discharged on 25.04.06 and proved the said record as Ex. PW3/1 (colly 10 sheets). Nothing substantial has appeared in cross examination of PW1 to PW3 to discredit their testimonies.
13. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A. Medical Expenses The petitioner has placed on record entire treatment record and medical bills and receipts for a total sum of Rs.51,481/ in Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/89. The same being MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 18 of 29 19 connected with the treatment in question are allowed. Since the said bills are duly proved on record, hence, Rs. 51,481/ is granted to the petitioner towards medical bills. B. Special Diet and conveyance The petitioner during arguments also demanded special diet and conveyance. PW1 has deposed that she visited the hospital for about 1520 times and an amount of Rs. 200/ to Rs. 350/ per visit was incurred for hiring a TSR/Taxi and as per the oral advise of the doctor she had been taking special diet which cost an additional financial burden of Rs. 100/ per day. In her cross examination, she interalia deposed that she was still taking special diet on her own. No specific documents/bills etc have, however, been filed on record to prove the same, however, in view of the injuries and taking the probable period treatment for about 8 months, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 24,000/ @ Rs. 3000/ per month for eight months is allowed. (Rs. 3000 p.m.x8 months).
C. Attendant Charges Petitioner has deposed that her family engaged a fully time maid servant for the preparation of food and her MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 19 of 29 20 other necessities and paid a sum of Rs. 3000/ per month to her. In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she did not have any evidence with regard to the engaging of maid servant for the preparation of food and other day to day household work. Petitioner has neither examined any such alleged maid servant nor has filed any such bill on record. Keeping in view the nature of injury, it is , however, clear that some person would have attended her for the said period of medical treatment. In the said circumstances, a reasonable lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/ is granted towards attendant charges. F. Pain and Suffering As discussed above, the petitioner deposed that she suffered some fractures and other injuries on her body including face and ear. In view of the fact that petitioner had suffered multiple injuries, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 75,000/ is allowed under this head.
G. Loss of income In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment undertaken by her, it is clear that the petitioner would not have been able to attend to her work for about MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 20 of 29 21 8 months. Further, petitioner is admittedly a housewife and she has not placed on record any document regarding her education, hence, minimum wage of unskilled labour would be taken into consideration. The minimum wage of an unskilled worker was Rs.3,271/ per month at the relevant time. Therefore, she is entitled to loss of income for about 8 months which comes to Rs. 26,168/ ( Rs. 3,271/per month x 8 months) under this head. Upon rounding of, it comes to Rs. 26,170/.
14. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.1,96,651/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/ 2 Special diet & Rs. 24,000/ Conveyance
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 51,481/
5. Loss of income Rs. 26,170/ Total Rs. 1,96,651/ (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundered Fifty one Only) MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 21 of 29 22 The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 22.01.2007 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
15. Liability In the present matter, Sh. Dheer Singh/R4 has lead his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R4W1/A and has relied upon the documents as Ex. R4W1/1 & R4W1/2 which are the copies of his driving licence. The driving licence Ex. R4W1/2 would show that R4 was licensed to drive the offending vehicle and the driving licence was renewed from 07.11.2004 to 06.11.2007 covering the date of accident. Further, the insurance co/R5 did not put any suggestion to R4W1(R4) to the effect that he was not having any valid driving licence to drive the bus at the MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 22 of 29 23 time of the accident. R4 has thus proved that he was having a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Insurance co./R5 has examined Ms. Neelam Rani Assistant, Oriental Insurance co. who has deposed regarding the insurance policy and has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it for the period 10.05.2005 to 09.05.2006.
R5W3 has deposed that legal notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC was served to the owner/driver of the offending vehicle through their counsel Ms. Seema Gulati which has proved as Ex. R5W3/2 and the postal receipts qua service of said notice on respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been proved as Ex. R5W3/3 to Ex. R5W3/5. Even affidavit of one Mr. Pritish Guha Sirkar, has been proved as Ex. R5W3/6 to the effect that he handed over the dasti summon to the office of Commissioner, Transport Authority, Lucknow, UP. R5W3 was not cross examined on behalf of petitioner or respondents no. 1 to 4 and his cross examination by them nil, opportunity given. In the said circumstances, the petitioner and respondents no. 1 to 4 shall be deemed to admit the testimony of R5W3 MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 23 of 29 24 regarding the service of legal notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC upon R1, R3 and R4. In facts, an adverse inference can be drawn against R1 to R3 i.e owner of the offending vehicle to the effect that the said vehicle was not having any valid permit at the time of the accident. It is further pertinent to note that R1 to R3 have not lead any evidence despite any opportunity and have thus failed to prove that they were having any valid permit for the said vehicle at the relevant time.
16. In the present case, though, it is shown on record that Respondent no. 1 to 3 were not having a valid permit qua the offending vehicle on the date of accident at the relevant time, yet the insurance company/R5 is under statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner/claimant and it can very well recover the said amount from R1 to R3 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle (Bus) as per rules.
17. Accordingly, in the case in hand, Oriental Insurance co/R5 is directed to deposit within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI Rohini Courts Complex, Delhi, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 24 of 29 25 Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. within 30 days from today the awarded amount of Rs.1,96,651/ alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R5 to the petitioner and her advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the Nazir as per rules. Insurance co. is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
18. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 26 MCTAP was recorded. I have heard the petitioner and Ld. counsel for the injured/petitioner regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 25 of 29 26 Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Hence on realization, out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ be released to the petitioner/injured and remaining amount alongwith interest be kept in the form FDRs of equal amount for a period of one year and two years respectively with cumulative interest in her name subject to the following directions:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the claimant/petitioner.
(ii) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant/petitioner.
(iii) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs be given to the claimant/petitioner alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs be given to claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant/petitioner.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 26 of 29 27
(iv) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/petitioner without permission of the Court.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(vi) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victims.
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
19. Relief In view of abovesaid discussion, Respondent Nos. 5 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,96,651/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 22.01.2007 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI Rohini Courts Complex, Delhi, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R5 to the petitioner and her advocate failing which she shall be liable to pay interest MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 27 of 29 28 @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
The R5 is also directed to place on record the proof of the deposit of award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today.
A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 5 for compliance within the granted time. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of nonreceipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
20. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 28 of 29 29
21. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Announced in the open Court (AMIT BANSAL) today i.e 26.08.2017 Judge MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 87/07 Kamlesh Vs. UP State Roadways. 29 of 29