Delhi District Court
Sh. Anil Bhardwaj @ Anil Kumar vs Sh. Kamlesh Rathor on 17 March, 2015
MODIFIED AWARD
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
(WEST-01):DELHI
Case NO.: 612/12
Sh. Anil Bhardwaj @ Anil Kumar
s/o Sh. Bhisham Chand
R/o B-67, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Nagar,
Delhi
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Kamlesh Rathor
s/o Sh Shree Chand Rathor
R/o D-21, Gali No.4,
Sanjay Mohalla, Bhajanpura,
Delhi ( driver)
2. Sh. Pravesh Thayaliyal
s/o Sh. Bachan Lal Thayaliyal
r/o B-50/1, , Gali No.5,
Bhajanpura, Delh -110053
Also at : B-50/1, Gali No. 3 & 4, Bhajanpura,
Delhi (owner)
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
A-74, Swami Dayanand Marg,
Main Road, Kanti Nagar,
Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi -110005( insurer)
......... Respondents
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 1/16 Date of Institution: 25/08/2012 Date of reserving order/judgment: 09/03/2015 Date of earlier pronouncement : 13/03/2015 Date of 'modified award' : 17/03/2015.
MODIFIED AWARD
1. Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Bipin Kumar Jha while receiving the copy has pointed out that there is typographical mistake in the age of the petitioner in the award dated 13/03/2015. The correct age of the petitioner was 52 years as on the date of accident, but it was inadvertently mentioned as 42 years in the award. It is further stated that as per correct age of the petitioner 15% of the income towards future prospects is required to be added and the multiplier '11' would be applied. Ld. Counsel requested for passing of modify award after correction of typographical mistake in the award. Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and the error /typographical mistake apparent on the face of record, the following modify award is passed as under:-
2. This modify Judgment-cum-Award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioner for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road vehicular accident.
3. Brief facts of the case of petitioner is that on 11/04/2012 at about 9.25 p.m while he alongwith his family members were travelling in Car No. DL-4CAL-3231 and when he reached near Shree Hospital, Najaibabad Road, then a offending vehicle Tavera Car No. DL -5CB-8590, which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, hit the car of petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner sustained injuries. In total, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- as Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 2/16 compensation on account of the injuries sustained by injured in the accident.
4. The written statement was filed by respondents No.1 & 2 wherein they categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also termed the contents of the petition to the false one.
5. The written statement was filed by respondent no.3/ insurance company wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident but denied the other contents of the petition.
6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for consideration on 31/01/2013.
1.Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 11/04/12 at about 9.25 p.m involving Tavera Car bearing No. DL-5CB-8590 driven by the Respondent No.1, owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with the Respondent No.3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In order to establish its claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Naresh Chandra as PW-2 who proved as to disability of the petitioner.
8. The respondents did not examine any witness in their defence.
9. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witness and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 110. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 3/16 bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
11. The police have filed the certified copy of the criminal case record pertaining to case FIR No. 406/12; P. S. Kotwali Shahar, U.P. u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
12. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court 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 on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed 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 compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 4/16
13. Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal, held as under:-
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
14. After going through all the documents filed by the petitioner as well as certified copy of the criminal case placed on record as a whole it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
15. The issue no. 1 ,therefore, stands decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
16. NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
As per the medical documents, the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries all over his body including severe spinal code injuries with fracture of vertebra. The petitioner has filed the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,48,000/-.
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 5/16 The respondents have not disputed the bills. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,48,000/- towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
17. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS :
It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed for pain and sufferings in all the cases and it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken to the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also to take heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v/s Jai Kishan , FAO No: 709/02, date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-
"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
© Duration of the treatment."
18. Keeping in view the said guidelines and keeping in view the aforesaid observation made by this court, I hereby allow Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Besides this, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet and conveyance.
19. LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD The petitioner stated to be working as Assistant with Metro Hospital, Delhi Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 6/16 and was stated to be earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. To prove his income, he has filed the salary certificate, Ex. PW1/6 issued by Metro Hospital that he was working as Manager in the hospital and he was a permanent employee in the hospital and was drawing salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The petitioner has also filed the leave certificate but the same does not mention the period of leave availed of by the petitioner due to injuries. Mere filing of salary certificate is not sufficient to prove the income of the injured. The petitioner has failed to produce its employer to prove his income or employment u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the documents Ex. PW1/6 and PW1/7 produced by the petitioner are not reliable.
20. The petitioner has filed the copy of driving license, Ex. PW1/2 suggesting his date of birth as 26/01/1960. He has also filed the statement of Marks of B. A. Part-II, Exam. 1981,Ex.PW1/4 issued by University of Garhwal, Srinagar(Garhwal).The petitioner has not filed the Degree of Graduation. Hence, the income of the petitioner can be assessed on minimum wages for matriculate person. The date of accident is 11/04/2012. Accordingly, the petitioner was 52 years as on the date of accident.
21. Considering all circumstances, it appears to me that petitioner could not have worked for about 6 months. In these circumstances, the income of the deceased can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident was 11/04/2012 on which the minimum wages for matriculate person were Rs. 8528/-. Accordingly, I award Rs. 51,156/- ( Rs.8528/- x 6) towards loss of income.
22. COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY:
PW-2 has proved the disability certificate, Ex. PW1/8. As per the disability certificate, the petitioner had got 21% permanent physical disability in relation to his spine. The said disability certificate also suggests that it is a case of Post traumatic Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 7/16 weakness of both lower limbs and right upper limb.
23. It is now the settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while assessing the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I gain support from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors, reported as 2011 ACJ I in which it was held as under:-
"Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss,that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent ( percentage ) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent ( percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent percentage of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment , the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 8/16 percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation(See for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra V New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar V. DM., National Insurance Co. Ltd. -2010(8) SCLE
567)"
24. The petitioner mentioned in his petition that he was in private job at the time of accident. It appears me from overall circumstances 21% physical disability in relation to his spine shall entirely effect 21% towards his working capacity.
25. Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 15% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563, but per contra Ld. counsel for the insurer objected to same.
I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have perused the record.
Initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Santosh Devi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors' in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 decided on 23/04/2012case had held as under:-
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstance. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 9/16 between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of this fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling on the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserved to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation".
However,in a recent case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563" wherein three Hon'ble Judges bench held that
11. Since, the court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) actually Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 10/16 intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) and to make it applicable also to self- employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 % always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 % to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 % in case the deceased was in age group of 40 to 50 years.
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on the fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 % in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.
20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 25,00/- to Rs. 10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse affection, comfort, solace, Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 11/16 companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rupees One Lakh for loss of consortium.
26. Since the injured / petitioner was 52 years of age as on the date of accident, 15% of income towards the future prospects is required to be added in terms of aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra). Hence after averaging out, the monthly income of injured comes out to be Rs. 9807.2 p. ( Rs. 8528/- +15%)
27. Accordingly the petitioner was 52 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 11 ( for the age group of 51 to 55 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08. Therefore, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to be Rs. 2,88,178.8 p. rounded off to Rs. 2,71,855. 5 rounded off to Rs. 2,71,855/- =( Rs. 9807.2 p.X 12 X 11 x 21/100). I also grant Rs. 50,000/- compensation towards loss of amenities of life and enjoyment of life.
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: Rs. 1,48,000/-
Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/-
Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of income during
treatment period Rs. 51,156/-
Compensation on account of
disability: Rs. 2,71,855/-
Compensation on account of
loss of amenities of life and
enjoyment of life Rs. 50,000/-
Total: Rs. 5,91,011/-
Modified Award bearing
Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 12/16
28. RELIEF:
I award Rs. 5,91,011/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand
Eleven Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e., 25/08/2012 till the notice under Order XXI Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
29. As per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S.Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, fifty percent(50%) of the amount awarded to petitioner shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioner can withdraw the interest quarterly from the said FDRs.
30. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
The respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the modified award amount within a period of 30 days under the intimation to this court. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay
31. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the modified award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the modified award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 13/16 of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 11801-11804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the modified award amount is passed. The para no.18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under:-
"19. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody.
However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 14/16
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."
32. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. Chanra Mohan Ojha, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch,Delhi (Mb: 9412341376 and Tel. No. 011-23987332) or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
33. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 15/16 the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
34. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
35. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
36. The parties are at liberty to contact in State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. Chanra Mohan Ojha, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch,Delhi (Mb: 9412341376 and Tel. No. 011-23987332) for their convenience.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 13/05/2015 Announced in the open court on 17th of March,2015 ( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 17/03/2015 Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 16/16 Suit No. 612/12 09/03/2015 Present: None Orders not ready.
Put up for orders on 13/03/2015.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 09/03/2015 13/03/2015.
Present: None Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date. File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 13/05/2015, to be fixed by insurance company.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 13/03/2015.
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 17/16 Suit No. 612/12 17/03/2015 File is taken up today on submission of Ld. Counsel for petitioner for correction of typographical /clerical mistake occurred in the award dated 13/03/2015. Present: Sh. Bipin Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for petitioner Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that he has pointed out that there is typographical mistake in the age of the petitioner in the award dated 13/03/2015 while receiving the copy of the said award. He further submits that the correct age of the petitioner was 52 years as on the date of accident, but it was inadvertently mentioned as 42 years in the award. It is further stated that as per correct age of the petitioner 15% of the income towards future prospects is required to be added and the multiplier '11' would be applied. Ld. Counsel requested for passing of modify award after correction of typographical mistake in the award.
Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and the error /typographical mistake apparent on the face of record. The copy of the award has not been supplied to the counsel for insurer so far.
Modify Judgment is announced vide separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 13/05/2015., to be fixed by insurance company.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 17/03/2015.
Modified Award bearing Suit No. 612/12 Page No. 18/16