Delhi District Court
Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. vs . Subhash Chand on 10 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN:
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT/ SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
st
1 Fatal Case
MACT No. 3786/16
FIR No: 500/13
PSOkhla Industrial Area
Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand
1. Smt Ranjeet Kaur W/o Shri Avtar Singh (Mother)
2. Shri Avtar Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh (Father)
Both R/o H. No. 73, Gali No. 7/4, Shakti Vihar,
Mithapur Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi110044
(Petitioners are parents of unborn child)
........................... Petitioners/claimants
Versus
Shri Subhash Chand Biswal S/o Shri Mathura Nand Biswal (Drivercum
Owner)
R/o H. No. D208, 2nd Floor, Left Side,
Vishwa Karma Colony near Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi
.....................Respondent
2 nd Injury Case Smt Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand Smt Ranjeet Kaur W/o Shri Avtar Singh R/o H. No. 73, Gali No. 7/4, Shakti Vihar, Mithapur Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi110044 ........................... Petitioner/claimant Versus MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page1 of 16) Shri Subhash Chand Biswal S/o Shri Mathura Nand Biswal (Drivercum Owner) R/o H. No. D208, 2nd Floor, Left Side, Vishwa Karma Colony near Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi .....................Respondent rd 3 Injury Case Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand Ms Simarjeet Kaur D/o Shri Avtar Singh R/o H. No. 73, Gali No. 7/4, Shakti Vihar, Mithapur Extension, Jaitpur, New Delhi110044 (Petitioner, being minor, is represented through her natural guardian/ mother) ........................... Petitioner/claimant Versus Shri Subhash Chand Biswal S/o Shri Mathura Nand Biswal (Drivercum Owner) R/o H. No. D208, 2nd Floor, Left Side, Vishwa Karma Colony near Pul Pehladpur, New Delhi .....................Respondent Date of Institution : 08.05.2014 Date of reserving the judgment : 10.07.2017 Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2017 Common Judgment:
1. By way of common judgment, I shall decide all three claim petitions filed by petitioners under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act on 08.05.2014.
2. Out of all three claim petitions, petition titled 'Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand' has been filed petitioner Ranjeet Kaur; petition titled 'Simarjeet Kaur MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page2 of 16) Vs. Subhash Chand' has been filed by minor petitioner minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur through her mother and petition titled 'Simranjeet Kaur & Anr.
Vs. Subhash Chand' has been filed by parents of unborn female child.
3. Brief facts of the case is that on 25.09.2013 at about 09.00 hours, petitioner Ranjeet Kaur alongwith her motherinlaw and minor daughter/petitioner namely Simarjeet Kaur were going on foot from their residence to ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi. When they reached at SA Road near ESI Hospital Red Light, OkhlaI, New Delhi and were crossing the road, suddenly offending motorcycle bearing registration No. DL3SBW7455, being driven by respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came with high speed and without giving any indication or blowing horn, hit petitioner Ranjeet Kaur and Simarjeet Kaur resulting in injuries to them. It was also claimed by Smt Ranjeet Kaur that she was at the last stage of pregnancy at the time of accident and her unborn female child died in the womb on 29.09.2013.
4. FIR No. 500/13, under Section 279/337 IPC at PSOkhla Industrila Area was got registered. Police conducted investigation. After completion of investigation, found respondent accused of rash and negligent driving and hence chargesheeted him for commission of offence under Section 279/338 IPC and Section 146/196, 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act.
5. During proceedings, respondent filed his written statement asserting that there is no fault of respondent at all in any manner. It is asserted that petitioner was crossing the road in an inappropriate manner in between the road. Further, petitioner was not crossing through the zebra crossing at red light. Instead, she was crossing the road beyond red light in between the road. It is asserted that petitioners came before the motorcycle suddenly, but respondent applied MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page3 of 16) sudden brakes and petitioners were never hit by the respondent. It is asserted that petitioner lady herself fell on the front mudguard of stationed motorcycle of respondent. Respondent asked respondent if she is feeling well. Petitioner told her that she is going to ESI Hospital. Respondent without wasting any time, admitted the petitioner in the hospital. Petitioner did not sustain injuries in the accident.
6. During inquiry, following issues were framed on 17.11.2014 in all three claim petitions:
1. Whether the deceased unborn child of Smt Ranjeet Kaur received fatal injuries and petitioners/injured Smt Ranjeet Kaur and Ms Simarjeet Kaur received injuries in the accident which took place on 25.09.2013 at about 09.00 AM involving offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SBW7455 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 1 (drivercumowner Subhash Chand)? OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to claim and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. During evidence, petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur got herself examined as PW1 and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A and relied upon certain documents i.e. her Discharge Summary issued from ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/1, prescription slips issued from Navjeevan Ortho Medical Centre and OPD Ticket issued from ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi is collectively Ex. PW1/2, medical bills are collectively Ex. PW1/3, copy of her Discharge Summary issued from Asian Institute of Medical Science is Mark X, copy of Birth Certificate of Simarjeet Kaur is MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page4 of 16) Mark Y, copy of document of handover of body of fetus is Mark Z, copy of her MLC and copy of MLC of Simarjeet Kaur are collectively Ex. PW1/4, FIR is Ex. PW1/5, copy of charge sheet is Ex. PW1/6, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW1/7, copy of RC of offending vehicle is Ex. PW1/8, copy of site plan is Ex. PW1/9, copy of mechanical inspection report is Ex. PW1/10 and copy of superdarinama of offending vehicle is Ex. PW1/11. She has deposed regarding injuries suffered by herself, her daughter Simarjeet and death of her unborn female child. She has also deposed regarding manner of accident.
8. Petitioners have also got examined PW2 Ms Preeti Nakra, Junior MRT, ESI Hospital, New Delhi who has proved MLC of petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur already Ex. PW1/4 and Discharge Summary of petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur which is already Ex. PW1/1.
9. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioners.
10. Respondent has not examined any witness in his defence.
11. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise finding is as under:
Issue No. 1 (Negligence):
12. PW1 Smt Ranjeet Kaur, in her affidavit of evidence, has deposed that she suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 who was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. DL3SBW7455. Nothing came in her cross examination to discredit her version. No evidence to the contrary has been filed by respondent. Testimony of PW1 also stand corroborated by investigation done by police. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page5 of 16) against respondent for commission of offence punishable under Section 279/338 IPC and Section 146/196, 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act.
13. Counsel for respondent has filed on record certified copy of Judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed by concerned criminal court wherein respondent No. 1 has been acquitted in the criminal court from the charges of offence under Section 279/338 IPC. However, it is a well known fact that findings of criminal court is not binding upon Claim Tribunals. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and Ors"
[2003 ACJ 369 MP (DB)], wherein it has been held that registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident. Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page6 of 16) compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
14. In view of the above discussion, petitioners Ranjeet Kaur and Simarjeet Kaur are able to prove that they suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R1. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2 (Compensation) Compensation for the LRs of unborn female child:
15. It was claimed by Smt Ranjeet Kaur that she was at the last stage of pregnancy and her unborn child died during the course of treatment for which operation was done after four days of accident. Medical record of petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur shows that she was indeed at the last stage of pregnancy. Petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur has also filed copy of Handover Receipt dated 29.09.2013 (Mark Z) pertaining to Asian Institute of Medical Science in respect of body of her fetus. However, counsel for respondent has argued that death of unborn child of Smt Ranjeet Kaur in the womb did not take place due to injuries suffered by her in the accident, but due to the fact that umbilical chord was tightened around the neck of unborn child.
16. I have perused the case file and there is nothing on record to show that fetus of petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur died in the womb due to injuries suffered in the road accident or due to tightening of umbilical chord around the neck. In these circumstances, it cannot be proved that fetus died in the womb of petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur due to injuries suffered in the accident. Hence, no amount can be granted to petitioners.
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page7 of 16) Claim in respect of injured/petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur:
17. Medical Expenses: PW1 Smt Ranjeet Kaur has stated in her affidavit of evidence that after the accident she was taken to ESI Hospital, New Delhi. As per MLC Ex. PW1/4 (collectively) issued from ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi, petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Petitioner has not filed any document in respect of admission in any hospital on the date of accident. Petitioner has filed Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 issued from ESI Hospital, New Delhi where she remained admitted from 27.09.2013 to 28.09.2013. She was diagnosed to have suffered G2P, 4 with 39+3 GA with trauma with fracture tibia (proximal) with symphysis diasthesis. From ESI Hospital, petitioner was referred to Asian Hospital. Petitioner has also filed her treatment documents of Nav Jeevan Ortho Medical Centre, Faridabad which shows that petitioner remained admitted in the said hospital from 14.10.2013 to 18.10.2013. She also underwent operation on 18.10.2013.
Petitioner has filed on record her original medical bills totaling to Rs.45,747/. Hence, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.46,000/ towards medical expenses.
18. Compensation for Pain and Suffering: Petitioner has suffered injuries in this accident due to which he has suffered pain and sufferings. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.35,000/ is granted towards pain and suffering.
19. Loss of Income during treatment: Injured/ petitioner has claimed that she was doing stitching work at her home and was earning Rs.10,000/ per month. However, there is nothing on record to show avocation or earnings of petitioner at the time of accident. Hence, income of petitioner can be taken as MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page8 of 16) per minimum wages for an unskilled workman at the time of accident, which was Rs.7,722/ per month. Keeping in view of the medical record of petitioner, it can be accepted that petitioner would have taken rest for about 03 months. The income of the injured is assessed as (Rs.7,722/ X 03) Rs.23,166/. Accordingly, petitioner is granted Rs.23,166/ towards loss of income during treatment.
20. Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance: Though petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in respect of money spent under this head, but this court is obliged to provide just compensation. Hence, keeping in view the nature of injuries & duration of treatment, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/ each is granted towards special diet, attendant and conveyance totaling to Rs.15,000/.
21. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: Details Amount Compensation for medical expenses Rs.46,000/ 1 Compensation for special diet, attendant Rs.15,000/ 2 and conveyance 3 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.35,000/ Compensation for loss of income/leave Rs.23,166/ 4 during treatment Total Rs.1,19,166/ Hence, petitioner Smt Ranjeer Kaur is awarded a total amount of Rs.1,19,166/ (Rs. One Lac Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Six Only).
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page9 of 16)
Claim in respect of minor injured/petitioner Simarjeet Kaur:
22. Medical Expenses: PW1 Ranjeet Kaur has deposed that after the accident, she and her daughter Simarjeet Kaur were taken to ESI Hospital. As per MLC Ex. PW1/4 (collectively) issued from ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi, petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the accident. No other document of minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur is filed on record. Though no medical bills have been filed, but keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by minor petitioner to be grievous, she is awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/ towards medical expenses.
23. Compensation for Pain and Suffering: Petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in this accident due to which she has suffered pain and sufferings.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.1,000/ is granted towards pain and suffering.
24. Loss of studies: In the claim petition, it is claimed that minor petitioner Simarjeet was aged about 09 years at the time of accident. However, as per Birth Certificate filed on record as Mark Y, date of birth of minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur is 16.11.2010. Date of accident is 25.09.2013, which implies that she was aged about 03 years at the time of accident. Thus, petitioner was aged only about 03 years at the time of accident. Thus, petitioner is not awarded any sum under this head.
25. Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance: Though petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in respect of money spent under this head, but this court is obliged to provide just compensation. Hence, MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page10 of 16) keeping in view the nature of injuries & duration of treatment, a lump sum amount of Rs.6,000/ is granted towards special diet, attendant and conveyance.
26. Thus, the total compensation to which petitioner is entitled comes as under: Details Amount Compensation for medical expenses Rs.2,000/ 1 Compensation for special diet, attendant Rs.6,000/ 2 and conveyance 3 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs,1,000/ 4 Compensation for loss of studies NIL Total Rs.9,000/ Hence, minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur is awarded a total amount of Rs.9,000/ (Rs. Nine Thousand Only).
RELIEF:
27. Minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur is awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/ (Rs. Nine Thousand Only) and petitioner Smt Ranjeet Kaur is awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,166/ (Rs. One Lac Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Six Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (excluding interest from 23.09.2016 to 16.02.2017 in terms of order dated 16.02.2017) from the date of filing of petitions till the date of realization in favour of petitioners against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
28. Respondent being the drivercumowner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation.
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page11 of 16)
Release of awarded amount of petitioner Simarjeet Kaur:
29. Minor petitioner Simarjeet Kaur is awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/. Entire compensation amount of petitioner Simarjeet Kaur shall be retained in the form of FDR till she attains the age of 21 years.
Release of awarded amount of petitioner Ranjeet Kaur:
30. A sum of Rs.1,99,166/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner. Out of this amount, Rs.99,166/ alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to the petitioner on realization. And for balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in form of FDRs in the following phased manner :
1. Rs.50,000/for period of 1 year
2. Rs.50,000/ for period of 2 years Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
31. 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.
32. 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 Vs. Nanisiri" bearing MAC 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 claimants.
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page12 of 16)
33. 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 is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners. Within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
34. 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:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners/claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants/ petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants/petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants/petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass Book shall be given to the claimants/ petitioners alongwith photocopy of the FDR's.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants/ petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page13 of 16)
(vii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
(viii) On the request of claimants/petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants/petitioners 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.
35. The Respondent shall intimate to the claimants/petitioners about it having deposited the cheque in favour of petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
36. Copy of this Award be given to the parties free of cost and a copy be also sent to SBI, Saket Court Complex Branch for record and compliance and copy be also sent to DLSA, SE and Ld. MM concerned.
37. FormIV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure to be mentioned in the Award is as under:
1 Date of the accident 25.09.2013.
2 Date of intimation of the accident 27.09.2013.
by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal.
3 Date of intimation of the accident Not available.
by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Company.
4 Date of filing of Report under Not known.
Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 31.01.2014.
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page14 of 16)
Information Report (DAR) by the
Investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal.
6 Date of service of DAR on the Not applicable as offending
Insurance Company. vehicle was not insured at
the time of accident.
7 Date of service of DAR on the 31.01.2014.
claimant(s).
8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes.
respects?
9 If not, state deficiencies in the Not applicable.
DAR?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes.
documents filed with DAR?
11 Whether there was any delay or DAR was not filed within
deficiency on the part of the stipulated period, but IO
Investigating Officer? If so, filed various applications for
whether any action/ direction extension of time in filing of
warranted? DAR giving reasons for
delay in filing of DAR. No
action was warranted.
12 Date of appointment of the Not applicable as offending
Designated Officer by the vehicle was not insured at
Insurance Company. the time of accident.
13 Name, address and contact Not applicable as offending
number of the Designated Officer vehicle was not insured at of the Insurance Company. the time of accident. 14 Whether the Designated Officer of Not applicable as offending the Insurance Company submitted vehicle was not insured at his report within 30 days of the the time of accident. DAR?
15 Whether the Insurance Company Not applicable as offending admitted the liability? If so, vehicle was not insured at whether the Designated Officer of the time of accident.
the Insurance Company fairly
computed the compensation in
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page15 of 16)
accordance with law.
16 Whether there was any delay or Not applicable as offending
deficiency on the part of the vehicle was not insured at
Designated Officer of the the time of accident.
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?.
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) Not applicable as offending
to the offer of the Insurance vehicle was not insured at
Company. the time of accident.
18 Date of the award. 10.07.2017.
19 Whether the award was passed No.
with the consent of the parties?
20 Whether the claimant(s) examined No, but financial condition
at the time of passing of the award of petitioners was asked to
to ascertain his/their financial obtain their financial
condition? condition.
21 Whether the photographs, Photo ICards and other
specimen signatures, proof of requisite information was
residence and particulars of bank already on record. account of the injured/legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award?
22 Mode of disbursement of the Part award amount is award amount to the claimant(s). released and rest is kept in the form of FDRs.
23 Next Date for compliance of the 17.08.2017.
award.
Announced in open Court (MADHU JAIN)
Dated: 10.07.2017 PO : MACT02, (SOUTH EAST DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI/10.07.2017
MACT No. 3786/16 (1) Ranjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand; (2) Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand & (3) Simarjeet
Kaur Vs. Subhash Chand (Page16 of 16)