Delhi District Court
Jalaluddin vs Sh. Ramesh Kumar (Driver) on 14 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DR. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 670/2019
CNR No. DLCT010120712019
Jalaluddin
W/o Amiruddin
R/o 3189, Gali Wakil Wali,
Kucha Pandit, Dr. Mirza Ahmed Marg,
Lal Kuan, Delhi - 110006
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ramesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Mahak Singh
R/o VPO Luhari, Teh. Badaut,
Baghpat, U.P.
2. Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi (Owner)
Central WorkshopI,
Banda Bahadur Marg Depot,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company)
DOXI, E85, Himalaya House,
23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi 110001
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 05.09.2019
Arguments heard on: 14.12.2020
Date of passing of Award: 14.12.2020
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 1 of 22
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:33:56
+0530
A W A R D:
(1) The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been filed on
05.09.2019 and has been registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition
in respect of an accident which took place on 10.09.2018 at 7:45 AM at
Red Light, Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, Delhi resulting into injuries to the
petitioner Jalaluddin. Later on 20.11.2019 the petitioner has filed a
separate Claim Petition which was Dismissed as Withdrawn and tagged
along with the main file.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Brief Facts as emerged from the DAR are that on 10.09.2018 at about 7:45 AM the injured/ petitioner was going from Asaf Ali Road towards Raj Ghat on his Scooty bearing No. DL3SDW 1412 and when he reached at Red Light, Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, Delhi and was crossing the Chowk on Green signal for going towards Raj Ghat, a DTC bus bearing No. DL1PC9084 which was being driven by the respondent no.1/ driver came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner while jumping the Red Light Signal in violation of all traffic rules and hit the petitioner with forceful impact. As a result of the same, the injured/ petitioner fell on the road along with his Scooty and suffered Grievous Injuries i.e. Fracture both bones on right let, lacerated wound over right proximal knee over distal thigh and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body.
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 2 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:34:08 +0530 (3) The case of the petitioner is that after the accident he was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital where he was treated and was discharged on 14.09.2018 with the advice to follow up in Ortho OPD for further treatment. According to the petitioner, the injured/ petitioner was working as a Manager with M/s. Variations Public School, N92A, Sailing Club, Lane No.2, Near Khaliullah Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs.22,000/ per month for which he requires perfect attention and movement. It is averred that the petitioner is a Graduate and is an Income Tax Assessee and has incurred around Rs.80,000/ on his Treatment, Special Diet and Conveyance etc. The case of the petitioner is that he had undergone extreme pain, shock, agony, mental torture, stress, sufferings and inconvenience etc. resulting into shortening of his life. The petitioner has estimated the losses suffered by him on various accounts to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lacs only).
(4) The respondent no.1 namely Ramesh Kumar and respondent no. 2 Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. have filed a joint reply wherein it is averred that the DTC bus No. DL1PC9084 was falsely implicated and a frivolous case has been registered against the respondent no.2 driver by the police officials. It is further averred that the Investigating Officer has not inquired from any independent public person nor recorded the statements of the persons from area where the alleged accident had taken place. It is also averred that the bus bearing No. DL1PC9084 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 0411003118P103359218 for the period Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 3 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:34:17 +0530 11.06.2018 to 10.06.2019. According to the respondents, they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioner/ claimant as the vehicle of the respondents has been falsely implicated and moreover the same was duly insured with the Insurance Company. (5) The Respondent No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has also filed a Written Statement wherein it is averred that the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case since as per the DAR the injured Jalaluddin was driving a scooty without any driving license at the time of the alleged accident and the Investigating Officer has filed a challan under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act against the injured. It is further averred that the respondent no.2 i.e. insured has not intimated the factum of accident and other necessary relevant details/ information to the respondent no.3 which he is required to submit under the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and under Motor Vehicles Act. It is also averred that the Investigating Officer/ Insured has failed to file/ supply and route permit of the alleged offending vehicle and hence, there being the violation and breach of terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy and Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent no.3 does not have any liability. It is further averred that the respondent no.3 is at liberty to take liberty/ plea or opportunity under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the defenses/ pleas under
the Insurance Act/ rules including under Section 64 V.B of the Insurance Act as available to the respondent. It is also averred that if the owner and driver fails to contest the claim petition or they are in collusion with the petitioner, then the respondent no.3 be allowed under Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 4 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:34:31 +0530 Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act to take all the defenses which are available to the owner and driver. It is further averred that from the contents of the DAR it is evident that the petitioner/ injured himself was negligent at the time of alleged accident since it was a head on collusion. (6) On merits, the insurance company has admittedly that the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9084 (DTC bus) was insured in the name of Delhi Transport Corporation vide Insurance Policy No. 0411003118P103359218 valid for the period from 11.06.2018 to 10.06.2019 issued by the respondent no.3 on certain terms and conditions and its liability is subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
ISSUES:
(7) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 20.11.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court has settled the following issues: i. Whether the petitioner Jalaluddin sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 10.09.2018 at about 7:45 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj, Delhi?
ii. Whether the vehicle No. DL1PC9084 driven by Ramesh Kumar was involved in the abovesaid accident? iii. If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9084?
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 5 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:34:42 +0530 iv. If the finding on issue no. 1, 2, and 3 above in the
affirmative, to what amount of compensation if the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
v. Relief. EVIDENCE: (8) The record reveals that despite having been granted an
opportunity, the petitioner has not examined any witness to prove his case. Neither any list of the witness was filed nor any affidavit of evidence was placed on record. Therefore, vide order dated 27.01.2020 the evidence of the petitioner was closed. In so far as the respondents are concerned, since the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence, therefore, the respondents did not lead their evidence.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(9) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and also given my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My findings on the various issues are under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Jalaluddin sustained injuries in the road accident which occurred on 10.09.2018 at about 7:45 AM within the jurisdiction of PS Darya Ganj, Delhi?
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 6 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:34:52 +0530 Issue No.2: Whether the vehicle No. DL1PC9084 driven by
Ramesh Kumar was involved in the abovesaid accident?
Issue No.3: If so, whether the said accident was caused due to sole and rash negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. DL1PC9084?
(10) All the above issues are taken up together involving common discussion. Onus of proving all the above issues was upon the petitioner Jalaluddin.
(11) The case of the petitioner Jalaluddin is that on 10.09.2018 at about 7:45 AM he was going from Asaf Ali Road towards Raj Ghat on his Scooty bearing No. DL3SDW1412 and when he reached at Red Light, Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, Delhi and was crossing the Chowk on Green Signal for going towards Raj Ghat, a DTC bus bearing No. DL 1PC9084 which was being driven by the respondent no.1/ driver came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that the said DTC bus while jumping the Red Light Signal in violation of all traffic rules, hit the petitioner with forceful impact as a result of which the injured/ petitioner fell on the road and suffered Grievous Injuries i.e. Fracture both bones on right let, lacerated wound over right proximal knee over distal thigh and also sustained abrasions, wounds and other grievous injuries all over his body. (12) In order to discharge the onus upon him, the petitioner has not examined any witness. Perusal of the record reveals that issues were settled by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2019 Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 7 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:03 +0530 after which the case was listed for Petitioner's Evidence. Despite the same no list of witness was filed nor any affidavit of evidence was filed by the petitioner. On 27.01.2020 when the case was listed for Petitioner's Evidence, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the first call. During the course of proceedings Sh. B.K. Poddar Advocate had appeared but no witness was present nor any list of witness was filed nor any affidavit of evidence was filed. Hence, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the Petitioner's Evidence was closed. Since the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence, therefore, the respondents also did not lead any evidence and statements of the Ld. Counsels for the respondents were also recorded to this effect, after which the case was listed for Final Arguments. (13) Here, I may note that the petitioner has not filed any application for recalling the order passed by this Court dated 27.01.2020 nor challenged the same by filing an appeal and hence, the order dated 27.01.2020 becomes final.
(14) However, I may observe that the respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar in his statement under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act has specifically admitted that he is the driver of the offending bus bearing No. DL1PC9048 and also admitted that the alleged accident had occurred with his vehicle. He has, however, stated that the alleged accident was caused due to negligence of the injured. (15) This being the background, the respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar having admitted that the alleged accident had occurred with his vehicle, I hereby hold that the petitioner Jalaluddin had sustained injuries in a Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 8 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:12 +0530 road accident which occurred on 10.09.2018 at about 7:45 AM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi involving bus bearing No. DL1PC9084 driven by respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar. (16) In so far as the aspect of rashness and negligence is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance upon the documents filed along with the DAR i.e. copy of FIR, Site Plan and MLC etc. Ld. Counsel has argued that the above documents would primafacie proves the negligence of the driver/ respondent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He has also placed his reliance upon the following authorities:
1. Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530.
2. Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand reported in 2011 (11) SCC
635.
3. Kusum Lata Vs. Satbir reported in 2011 (3) SCC 646.
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors. reported in 2014 (2) T.A.C. 846 (Del).
(17) I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I may observe that facts of the present case are different since the petitioner Jalaluddin has failed to lead any evidence despite having been granted an opportunity in this regard. Further, it is evident from the record that at the time of the accident the petitioner Jalaluddin was not having a Driving License and in fact the petitioner was challened under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act which automatically infers a definite threat Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:21 +0530 to the general public.
(18) This being the background, I hereby hold that the petitioner has not been able to prove and establish the rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar. (19) However, since the respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar has made a statement under Section 165 of Evidence Act thereby admitting the involvement of his bus i.e. bus bearing No. DL1PC9084, I hold that the petitioner has been able to prove his case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act (not under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act). (20) All the above issues are accordingly disposed off.
Issue No. 4: If the finding on issue no. 1, 2, and 3 above in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation if the petitioner entitled, and from whom?
(21) The case of the petitioner is that the accident took place on 10.09.2018 and remained admitted in LNJP hospital till 14.09.2018. According to him, thereafter on 19.09.2018 he was admitted in Sanjeevani Hospital, Jasola, Delhi where he was operated and a set of implants were inserted in his right leg and was discharged on 26.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner/ injured remained admitted in the hospital for four days where he underwent many operations as evident from the Discharge Summary, Discharge Bill, OPD Cards and Tests/ Xray reports filed along with the DAR. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.60,000/ towards pain & suffering, mental tension and inconvenience etc. Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:29 +0530 (22) It is also argued that the petitioner he had incurred a sum of Rs.15,000/ on Conveyance, Rs.30,000/ on Special Diet and Rs.40,342/ towards Medical Expenses. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner/ injured was working as a Manager with M/s. Variations Public School, N92A, Sailing Club Lane No.2, Near Khaliullah Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs.22,000/ per month which fact is evident from the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 201819 filed along with the DAR. It is further argued that due to the injuries suffered in the accident and prolonged treatment, the injured/ petitioner could not work for about six months and therefore, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,32,000/ towards loss of income during the period of his treatment and bed rest. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner had to engage an Attendant for his care, lookafter and assistance in attending the calls of nature for four months for which he had paid Rs.10,000/ per month totalling Rs.40,000/. It is further argued that since the implants are inserted in the right leg of the petitioner, the same will be removed after healing for which at least a sum of Rs.25,000/ will be incurred and he will also remain on complete bed rest for about 1015 days and hence the petitioner is also entitled a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards Future Treatment. (23) I have considered the arguments advanced before me. In view of my findings with regard to the issues no1 to 2, I have already held that the petitioner Jalaluddin has not been able to prove the rashness and negligence so attributed to the respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar and his Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:39 +0530 case is covered under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. (24) I may observe that vide notification bearing No. S.O.2022 (E) dated 22.05.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, the second Schedule is reproduced as under:
Schedule for Compensation for Third Party Fatal Accidents/ Injury cases claims:
1. (a) Fatal Accident:
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakh rupees.
(b) Accidents resulting in permanent disability:
Compensation payable shall be = [Rs.5,00,000/ X percentage disability as per ScheduleI of the Employee's Compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923)]; Provided that the minimum compensation in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees.
(c) Accidents resulting in minor injury:
A fixed compensation of twenty five thousands rupees shall be payable.
2. On and from the date of 1st day of January, 2019, the amount of compensation specified in the clause (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually.
3. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 12 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:47 +0530 (25) As per the medical record, the petitioner sustained Grievous Injuries but he has not sustained any permanent disability and hence, the case of the petitioner is covered by Clause 'C' as mentioned in the notification. Accordingly, the petitioner Jalaluddin is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/.
(26) Since, interest @ 9% per annum was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), it is held that claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 05.09.2018 till realization of the amount.
Disbursement:
(27) The Financial Statement of the petitioner Jalaluddin has been recorded according to which his monthly expenses are about Rs.20,000/.
(28) Considering the quantum of amount, on realization of the award amount, the entire award amount plus interest be released to the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 decided on 07.12.2018, the entire amount shall be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank without the facility of cheque book and ATM card. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to him only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if has been issued, same has been Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 13 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:35:57 +0530 withdrawn and same shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
(29) In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated December 07, 2018, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format IVB is as under: SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 10.09.2018
2. Name of the Injured: Jalaluddin
3. Age of the Injured: 23 Years (as per the MLC)
4. Occupation of the Injured: Manager, Variations Public School (Not Proved)
5. Income of the Injured: Rs.22,000/ per month (Not proved)
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken by LNJP Hospital & the injured: Sanjeevani Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization: 10.09.2018 to 14.09.2018 and 19.09.2018 to 26.09.2018
9. Whether any permanent No disability? If yes, give details:
10. COMPUTATION OF COMPENASATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the claims No. Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Under Section 163A of
ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Motor Vehicles Act Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 14 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:36:06 +0530
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet
(iv) Cost of Nursing/ attendant Under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical 25,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation NA of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in NA relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % NA earning capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.25,000/ Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:36:17 +0530
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount upto the date of award Rs.3,054/ (1 year, 3 months & 9 days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.28,054/
18. Award amount released As mentioned in para No.28
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para No.28
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para amount of the claimant(s) No.28
21. Next date for compliance of the award 22.01.2021 Liability:
(30) Now coming to the aspect of Liability to pay the compensation amount. It is an admitted case of the parties that the offending vehicle i.e. DTC bus bearing No. DL1PC9084 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 0411003118P103359218 for the period 11.06.2018 to 10.06.2019. It is, however, argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case since the petitioner/ injured Jalaluddin was driving the scooty without a driving license and hence the petitioner was even challaned under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rehmani Begum & Ors.
Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. MAC APP. No. 954/2017 decided on Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:36:35 +0530 18.01.2019.
(31) I have considered the arguments advanced before me. I have also gone through the above judgment in the case of Rehmani Begum & Ors. Vs. Krishan Pal & Ors. and I may observe that the said judgment do not apply to the facts of the present case since the said case relates to a case of Fatal Accident which took place early in the morning at 3:15 AM whereas the accident in the present case took place in day light i.e. at 7:45 AM.
(32) Since the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Ramesh Kumar and registered in the name of respondent no.2 Delhi Transport Corporation whereas same was insured with respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd., all shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner but since the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3 as on the day of accident, it is respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. who is ultimately held liable to indemnify the insurance and to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner under the statutory liability.
(33) Issue is accordingly disposed off. RELIEF: (34) The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Hence, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 05.09.2019 till realization Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:06 +0530 with the Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the petitioners failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(35) The Insurer of the offending vehicle is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and complete detail in respect of calculation of interest etc. within 30 days. (36) A copy of this judgment be sent to the respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. for compliance within the time granted. Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto date of intimation of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel namely Sh. B.L. Khurana Advocate, Chamber No.149, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Mob. No. 9810037468.
(37) Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 22.01.2021 in the event of nonreceipt/ deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
(38) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the judgment titled Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. decided by Hon'ble High Court on December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the concerned court of Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 18 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:16 +0530 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
(39) File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:27 +0530 Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 14.12.2020 Judge, MACT01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 19 of 22 FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 10.09.2018 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Claims Tribunal 13.09.2018 (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Investigating Officer to the Insurance Not Mentioned in the DAR Company (Clause 2) 4 Date of filing of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Not Mentioned in the DAR (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report (DAR) by the 05.09.2019 Investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6 Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 05.09.2019 Company. (Clause 11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the Claimant(s) 05.09.2019 (Clause 11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all respects?
No (Clause 16) 9 If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No removed later on?
10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No whether any action/direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company (Clause 07.10.2019
20) 13 Name, address and contact number of the Sh. Pankaj Prakash, Manager Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 20 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:41 +0530 14 Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 22) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted the liability? If so, whether the Designated No Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the No offer given by Insurance offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24) Company 18 Date of award 14.12.2020 19 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to 17.02.2020 the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the 17.02.2020 passbook of their savings bank account(s) (The petitioner has filed the copy near the place of their residence alongwith of bank passbook without the the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar necessary endorsement) Card? (Clause 18) 23 Permanent residential address of the As per award claimant(s). (Clause 27) 24 Details of savings bank account(s) of the A/c No. 0127000101409373 claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Punjab National Bank, Asaf Ali the IFSC Code. (Clause 27) Road, Delhi IFSC: PUNB0012700 Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 21 of 22 Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:50 +0530 25 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is near their place of residence? Yes (Clause 27) 26 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at Yes. The financial statement of the time of passing of the Award to ascertain the petitioner has been recorded. his/their financial condition? (Clause 27) 27 Account number, MICR number, IFSC Code, Judge MACT01, Delhi, SBI, name and branch of the bank of the Claims Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Tribunal in which the award amount is to be Customer No. 80761891696, deposited/ transferred.
Code No. 00726
Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU
KAMINI LAU Date: 2020.12.14 17:37:58
+0530
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Judge, MACT01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/ 14.12.2020
Jalaluddin Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors., MACT No. 670/2019, Award dated 14.12.2020 Page No. 22 of 22