Delhi District Court
S. Pankajavalli vs . Kamlesh Kumar on 13 April, 2018
S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SAMEER BAJPAI : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT : SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. : 75415/16
S. Pankajavalli
D/o Sh. K S Rangan
R/o A2536, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Kamlesh Kumar
W/o Rishi Kumar
R/o H. No. 13A,
Humayun Pur village,
New Delhi (Driver cum Owner)
2. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.
H. No. 414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Mandir,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai (Insurer)
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.05.2014
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 14.03.2018
Date of pronouncement : 13.04.2018
J U D G M E N T :
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by SHO police station Safdarjung Enclave for the injuries sustained by Ms. S. Pankajavalli in a road accident on 13.03.2014 at 10.30 AM in front of Focus Laboratory Road, Gurudwara Road, Green Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 1 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar Park, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 12 SC 6874 by Kamlesh, owned by Kamlesh and insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Respondent no.1 did not file any reply to the DAR.
3. In its reply responded no.2/insurance company admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 3005/20469439/10379/000 for the period from 06.10.13 to 05.10.14. It is further stated that as per the contents of DAR the responded no.1 was holding a driving licence of LMV(NT), however, she was driving a TwoWheeler scooty at the time of accident. Therefore, the responded no.1 has breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. For just adjudication of the case following issues were framed :
1. Whether Ms. Pankajavalli sustained injuries in road accident on 13.03.2014 at 10.30 AM in front of Focus Laboratory Road, Gurudwara Road, Green Park, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no. DL 12 SC 6874 being driven by Kamlesh, owned by Kamlesh and insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company?
2. To what amount of compensation the injured is entitled and from whom?
3. Relief.
5. Petitioner examined herself as PW1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9 (colly.).
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 2 of 19S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar
6. Sh. Prabhakar Singh, Sr. Executive Assistant, Rajya Sabha Secretariat was examined as PW2. He has brought the salary slip Ex.PW2/1, leave record of the petitioner Ex.PW2/2 (colly.) and leave applications and application for extension of leave and its sanctions Ex.PW2/3 (OSR).
7. Dr. Vaibhav Gulati, Sr. Resident, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital was examined as PW3. He has brought the disability certificate Ex.PW3/A.
8. Respondent no.1 examined herself as R1W1. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R1W1/1 and relied upon the documents Ex.R1W1/A and Ex.R1W1/B.
9. Ms. Sarita was examined as R1W2. She tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R1W2/A.
10. Respondent no.2 insurance company examined Sh. Afaq Sherwani its Manager (Legal) as R2W1. He tendered in evidence Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon the documents Ex.R2W1/1 to Ex.R2W1/6.
I S S U E No. 111. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle needs to be proved and to prove the same the Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 3 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar quantify the compensation which is just, rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. It is an admitted legal position that the negligence on part of the driver with respect to use of the vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi.
PW1 has stated that on 13.03.2014 at about 1030 hrs. she was going from her residence to Focus Laboratory, Green Park, New Delhi. She was crossing the road in front of Focus Laboratory Road, Gurudwara Green Park, New Delhi, when she crossed the half road on foot in a careful manner and on correct side of the road, then all of a sudden a Scooty bearing no. DL 12 SC 6874 came from the side of Red Light Arjun Nagar at a high speed being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent and hit her. She fell down and sustained injuries. She was taken to Govt. Dispensary. After first aid she was taken to RML Hospital where her MLC bearing no. 48739/14 was prepared. Thereafter, she took treatment from Fortis Hospital. She further stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1.
During crossexamination she stated that at the time of accident she was crossing the road on zebra crossing and it was red light. She further stated that she crossed the "patri" before her accident. She further stated that she almost crossed the road when she met with the accident. She denied the suggestion that she was not seeing left and right side of the road. She further stated that the scooty was of white and pink colour and its number was DL 12 SC 6874. She denied the Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 4 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar suggestion that she crossed the road at a place which was not meant for crossing. She further denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to her own negligence as she was in hurry.
Perusal of site plan shows that the injured/petitioner was crossing the road where there is no crossing or a zebra crossing. In fact there is divider on the road, at the point from where the injured was crossing the road. Thus, I also see negligence on the part of the petitioner as she herself did not see traffic and was crossing the road from a point which was not meant for crossing the road. Therefore, her contribution in accident can safely be taken as 40%. As far as the role of the respondent no.1 is concerned, she should have also driven her vehicle cautiously but it seems that she was not cautious and that is why caused the accident. It is concluded that there was negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and the injured. Thus, the issue no.1 stands decided accordingly holding that the negligence of the injured was 40 percent.
I S S U E No. 212. The petitioner has claimed compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by her. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
13. Let me assess the compensation which the claimant is entitled for under different heads MEDICAL EXPENSES :
14. The petitioner in her crossexamination has admitted that all of her Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 5 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar medical bills were paid by Govt. of India under CGHS admissibility. She voluntarily stated that some part of her medical bills were not paid by Govt. of India as the same were not admissible under the scheme. She has filed medical bills of Rs. 10,821/. Hence, I award Rs. 10,900/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
PHYSIOTHERAPY EXPENSES :
15. The petitioner has filed receipts with regard to physiotherapy expenses incurred by her for her different body parts. She has filed following payment receipts :
S. No. Period Rate per day Amount
(In Rs.)
1 01.07.14 to 28.10.14 (60 days) 200/ 12,000/
2 01.07.14 to 28.10.14 (60 days) 200/ 12,000/
3 01.07.14 to 28.10.14 (60 days) 200/ 12,000/
4 01.11.14 to 30.11.15 (276 days) 600/ 1,65,600/
5 01.12.15 to 31.03.16 (89 days) 600/ 53,400/
6 01.04.16 to 30.06.17 (168 days) 600/ 1,00,800/
Total 3,55,800/
Perusal of record shows that the petitioner was advised physiotherapy by the doctor. The petitioner has placed on record receipts to show the payment on physiotherapy as mentioned in the above table. Very surprisingly initial three receipts for Rs. 12,000/ are for the same period i.e. 01.07.14 to 28.10.14 which shows clear manipulation in order to receive maximum amount in award. Further, the receipts do not show particular days on which the petitioner visited the physiotherapist and just mentioned that payment of Rs. 200/ per Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 6 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar visit was made for 60 days from 01.07.14 to 28.10.14.
There is another receipt of Rs. 1,00,800/ for physiotherapy for 168 days @ Rs. 600/ per visit from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017. It is very surprising that from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 the petitioner got her physiotherapy done daily and did not miss even a single day. To my mind it is highly improbable or impossible that the petitioner could get her physiotherapy done each and every day without missing even a single day. It means that the petitioner and the physiotherapist both did not have any occasion or reason to miss the physiotherapy. To my mind, the receipt is clearly manipulated and fake.
Further, the receipts as filed by the petitioner on the face of it appear to be manipulated and fake.
No doubt that the petitioner might have taken physiotherapy but she was not supposed to procure fake bills in order to get a larger amount. If she had infact paid certain amount for the physiotherapy she was supposed to take a proper bill and to place the same on record of the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the above observation, I do not think that the petitioner should be given a single rupee towards this head, and rather should be prosecuted for raising fake claim but as the Act is for the benefits of the victims of road accident and the doctor prescribed her physiotherapy and she might have taken the same, I award Rs. 50,000/ towards this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
16. As per the discharge summary of Fortis Hospital, the petitioner was diagnosed with Lateral Tibial Plateau Fracture Left, volar barton Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 7 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar fracture left. ORIF lateral plateau left tibia with plating and bone grafting and volar buttress plating left distal radius was done. She hospitalised in RML Hospital from 13.03.14 to 14.03.14. She was again hospitalised in Fortis Hospital from 15.03.14 to 23.03.14. She has suffered 46% permanent disability in relation to her Both Upper Limbs and Left Lower Limb. Looking into the injuries, period of hospitalisation and disability suffered by the petitioner, I award her Rs. 1,00,000/ towards pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
17. In the discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 the doctor has not advised any special diet to the petitioner and rather specifically mentioned that she will take normal regular diet. Therefore, the petitioner should not be granted any amount towards special diet. As far as the conveyance charges are concerned, I award Rs. 20,000/ to the petitioner towards conveyance charges.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
18. The petitioner has placed on record following receipts for the attendant charges :
S. No. Period Rate Amount in Rs.
1 01.01.15 to 31.03.16 (456 days) Rs. 400/ 1,82,400/
2 01.10.14 to 31.12.14 (92 days) Rs. 400/ 36,800/
3 01.06.14 to 29.06.14 and Rs. 600/ 54,600/
30.06.14 to 30.09.14 and
Rs. 400/
4 01.04.16 to 30.06.17 (456 days) Rs. 400/ 1,82,400/
TOTAL 4,56,200/
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 8 of 19
S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar
In the same way in which the petitioner has claimed the bills of physiotherapy, she has claimed the charges of attendant. One bill for attendant charges is for Rs. 1,82,400/ from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 for 456 days @ Rs. 400/ per day. Again it is observed that for the sake of raising a huge bill, the petitioner got the same prepared for 456 days. Surprisingly, the attendant did not miss even a single day to attend the petitioner. In crossexamination the petitioner stated that she doesn't know her address, obviously for the reason that the attendant might be summoned by the respondents and the truth will be revealed. Further, even in the receipts no name has been mentioned as to who had taken money from the petitioner and only signature has been put by somebody. Therefore, the receipts filed by the petitioner cannot be considered as apparently not genuine. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner might have been looked after by somebody, I award her Rs. 10,000/ only to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF LEAVES :
19. The petitioner has stated that at the time of accident she was posted as Jt. Director in Rajya Sabha Secretariat and was drawing salary of Rs. 1,18,767/ p.m. PW2 has brought the salary slip of the petitioner Ex.PW2/1. He has also brought the leave record of the petitioner Ex.PW2/2 (colly.). He stated that as per record, the petitioner remained on medical leave for a period of 99 days and on earned leave for a period of 08 days to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. He has also proved the leave applications and application for extension of leaves and its sanctions Ex.PW2/3. He further stated that Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 9 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar as per record she has joined the Govt. job in Rajya Sabha Secretariat on 14.06.1989 and her date of birth as per office record is 02.07.1964. During crossexamination PW1 has admitted that she was paid salary during her medical treatment period. Although it has come on record that the petitioner was paid salary for the period of her leaves, but she was forced to go on leave due to the injuries sustained in the accident, which leave she would avail for some other illness, therefore, it would not be justified, if the amount for the period of leaves is not granted to her. The I.O in the DAR has filed the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of March, 2014, as per which she was getting gross salary of Rs. 94,250/ p.m. which includes Rs. 6,080/ as transport allowance, which is to be deducted for calculating the loss of leaves. After deduction, the net salary of the petitioner comes to Rs. 88,170/ p.m. The petitioner remained on leave for a period of 107 days. So, the amount towards loss of leaves comes to Rs. 3,14,473/ (Rs. 88,170 / 30 x 107) which is rounded off to Rs. 3,14,500/. I therefore, award Rs. 3,14,500/ to the petitioner towards loss of leaves.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS DISABILITY :
20. The petitioner has suffered 46% permanent physical impairment in relation to her both upper limbs and left lower limb. PW3 Dr. Vaibhav Gulati has proved the disability certificate of the petitioner Ex.PW3/A. He stated that the both upper limbs have minimal disability as there is no movement restriction but the petitioner is complaining of pain. He further stated that the disability is more of left lower limb. There would be restriction of movement of knee with difficulty in squatting, kneeling, sitting crosslegs and climbing stairs. He further stated that there Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 10 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar would be stiffness in the knee and would be some loss of movement in knee joint. He was not crossexamined despite giving opportunity. No evidence has come on record to show that the petitioner has suffered any monetary loss or promotion loss due to the disability. Even she is working in the same department after the accident. Therefore, I award a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the petitioner as compensation towards disability.
LOSS OF AMENITIES :
21. Due to the permanent disability, the petitioner would not be able to participate in the normal activities of her daily life to pursue her talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an affect on her social life. I therefore, award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
22. The total compensation in favour of petitioner is assessed as under :
MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 10,900/
PHYSIOTHERAPY EXPENSES : Rs. 50,000/
PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/
CONVEYANCE : Rs. 20,000/
ATTENDANT CHARGES : Rs. 10,000/
LOSS OF LEAVES : Rs. 3,14,500/
COMPENSATION TOWARDS DISABILITY : Rs. 2,00,000/
LOSS OF AMENITIES : Rs. 1,00,000/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 8,05,400/
============
L I A B I L I T Y
23. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, primary Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 11 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar liability to compensate the petitioner remains with respondent no. 1. Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no.1, she is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, therefore, respondent no.2 is contractually liable to compensate the petitioner.
24. In order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability, ld.
counsel for the insurance company has stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid licence. He has relied upon the testimony of R2W1 Sh. Afaq Sherwani.
25. R2W1 has stated that as per the contents of the DAR, the respondent no.1 has produced her driving licence to the Investigating Officer and the said driving licence was valid for LMV (NT) only for the period from 29.07.2013 to 20.02.2028. Therefore, the said driving licence was not issued to drive any twowheeler. Hence, the said driving licence of respondent no.1 was not valid and effective to drive the offending vehicle which is a Scooty. He further stated that their counsel has issued a notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R2W1/1 and Ex.R2W1/2 to the driver cum owner. He further stated that the respondent no.1 has violated the driver clause of the insurance policy. He has also placed on record the copy of said driving licence and its verification report filed Ex.R2W1/5 and Ex.R2W1/6. He was not crossexamined by the counsel for the driver cum owner despite giving opportunity.
26. I have perused the record considered the testimony of R2W1. The Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 12 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar driving licence bearing no. DL0320130417096 of the respondent no.1 was valid only for LMVNT. There is no endorsement of Two Wheeler on the said licence. The petitioner at the time of accident was driving a Scooty which was a two wheeler. Therefore, there is a clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle with a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, it is ordered that the insurance company shall satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter, it can recover the same from the respondent no.1.
27. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
R E L I E F
28. In view of my findings, I award Rs. 5,63,780/ (Rs. Five Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eight only) i.e. 70% of Rs. 8,05,400/ to the petitioner as compensation alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation.
Petitioner was examined by the Tribunal on 23.10.2017 in terms of order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.
Petitioner has stated that the entire amount be given to her and no amount be kept in the form of fixed deposit as he has suffered 46% permanent disability and she is residing alone with her old aged father.
The petitioner is a Govt. servant and taking a handsome salary, as such the petitioner need not be given the award amount in the form of FDR. Prayer of the petitioner is considered and it ordered that the Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 13 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar entire amount may be released to her. It is however, ordered that 90% of the award amount shall be credited by the SBI, District Courts Saket branch in her personal account directly and the remaining 10% may be released to her from the SBI, District Courts Saket branch.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
29. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
30. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as "Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimant.
31. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner.
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 14 of 19S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
32. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner :
1. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner/claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank account with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
2. No cheque book be issued to petitioner/claimant without the permission of this Court.
3. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioner/claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
4. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner/claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
5. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
6. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
7. On the request of petitioner/claimant, the Bank shall transfer the amount to the bank in which the petitioner has his personal accunt and given the details thereof to the Tribunal and Manager, SBI Saket Court branch.
8. Petitioner/claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
9. The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimant at the time of preparation of FDRs.
10. The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the respondents in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimant, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimant for the said period.
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 15 of 19S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar
11. The Manager of SBI, Saket Court branch is directed not to release any amount to the petitioner in this branch except 10% of the award amount as and when required by the petitioner. It is clarified that all the amount including the maturity amount of FDRs shall be credited to the personal account of the petitioner, the details of which has been given by him to the Tribunal. The petitioner shall produce the same details / passbook of her bank to the Manager, SBI Saket Court branch. In this particular case, the amount shall be credited to the personal account of the petitioner in Indian Overseas Bank branch Parliament Street, New Delhi through RTGS or any other appropriate electronic mode.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT No. 233. The Respondent no.2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
34. The Respondent no.2 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheque of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimant/petitioner in whose favour the award has been passed.
35. The Respondent no.2 shall intimate the claimant/petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the claimant in terms of the award, at the address of the claimant mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same.
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 16 of 19S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar
36. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the claimant who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount by the respondent no.2.
37. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
38. The case is now fixed for compliance by the respondent no.3 for 14.05.2018.
39. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under :
1 Date of the accident 13.03.2014 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 26.05.2014 Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not available Investigating Officer to the insurance company 4 Date of filing of Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Not available before the Metropolitan Magistrate 5 Date of filing the Detailed Accident Report 26.05.2014 (DAR) by the Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal 6 Date of service of DAR on the insurance 26.05.2014 company 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant 26.05.2014 8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respect?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the DAR N.A. Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 17 of 19 S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar 10 Whether police has verified the documents Yes filed with DAR 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated N.A. Officer by the insurance company. 13 Name, address and contact number of the N.A. designated officer of the insurance company.
14 Whether the designated officer of the No insurance company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
15 Whether the insurance company admitted No the liability? If so, whether the designated officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the designated officer of the insurance company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted 17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No offer was given by offer of the insurance company. the insurance company. 18 Date of the award 13.04.2018 19 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined at the Petitioner was time of passing of the award to ascertain examined. Financial his/their financial condition? condition was asked from the petitioner.Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 18 of 19
S. Pankajavalli vs. Kamlesh Kumar 21 Whether the photographs, specimen Yes 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?
22 Mode of disbursement of the award Some amount is amount to the claimant (s). directed to be released to the petitioner and some amount is kept in the form of fixed deposit.
23 Next date for compliance of the award. 14.05.2018
Announced in the Open Court
on 13th day of April, 2018 (SAMEER BAJPAI)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts New Delhi
Suit No. : 75415/16 Page No. 19 of 19