Delhi District Court
Priti Gupta @ Poonam Rani vs Shri Sachin Pal (Driver) on 22 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
P.O. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT : KKD COURTS : DELHI
MACT No. 210/11 and New MACT No. 14605/15
FIR No. 44/11, P.S.Khekra, Baghpat
U/sec 279/338 IPC
PRITI GUPTA @ POONAM RANI
S/o Sh. Viney Kumar Gupta
R/o D-892, Gali No. 13, D-Block,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi ........Petitioner
Versus
1. SHRI SACHIN PAL (Driver)
S/o Sh. Jai Narayan Singh
R/o Village Badawad, Distt. Baghpat.
2. PRAVEEN KUMAR CHAUHAN (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Gyaa Singh
R/o 11/551, Patel Nagar,
Baraut, Distt. Baghpat , UP
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
D. R. O. - II, 2-E/9, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi. .....Respondents
Through :
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.(address not mentioned) Sh. Devender Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1,Seat No. 95, Distt. Court Complex, KKD, Shahdara, Delhi - 32 Sh. Rana Anang Pal Singh, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, Ch. No. D-726, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Sh. Piyush Sharma, ld. Counsel for insurance co., W-2 K-112, A, Krishna Park Extn. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
i) Date of institution of the case : 03.05.2011
ii) Date on which Award pronounced : 22.09.2016 APPLICATION U/S 166 & 140 M.V. ACT 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 1/15 AWAR D
1. Petitioner being the injured has filed the present claim petition seeking compensation under MV Act. It is the case of the petitioner that on 28.02.2011 at about 8:15 am, petitioner was going in the bus bearing no. UP 17T 1857 alongwith her husband Sh. Viney Kumar Gupta and her nephew Jitender Kumar to village Khekra. When the petitioner was alighting from the bus, in the meantime the driver of the bus without caring for the petitioner who was alighting from the bus bearing no. UP 17T 1857, started the bus with a jerk, due to which petitioner fell down on the road and the front rear wheel of bus crushed the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner was removed to Raksha Hospital, Baghpat. The doctor seeing the grievous injuries, referred the petitioner to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. On the same day , she was removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Thereafter, she was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital where MLC was prepared. Again she was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on the same day, where the doctors amputated the right leg of the petitioner above knee. The petitioner remained admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 28.02.2011 to 09.03.2011, thereafter, she was admitted on 30.03.2011 and discharge on 01.04.2011. During that period, the surgery was performed on 28.02.2011, 02.03.2011 , 04.03.2011 and 30.03.2011. It is averred that petitioner incurred huge expenditure for treatment and petitioner also suffered permanent disability due to which petitioner's future earning capacity is affected. PS Khekra, Baghpat has registered FIR No. 44/11 against respondent no.1 based on the information given by petitioner.
2. Summons were issued to respondents. All the respondents contested the claim petition. Respondents no. 1 & 2 filed a written statement. It has not been specifically denied that FIR no. 44/11 was registered at PS Khekra, Baghpat against respondent no. 1. According to respondent no. 1, no accident has been caused by him.
3. WS was also filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 stating that vehicle i.e. MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 2/15 bus bearing no. UP 17 T 1857 was insured with the respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 361202/31/10/6300002943 valid from 29.06.2010 to 28.06.2011.
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed :
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 17 T 1857 by respondent no. 1 on 28.02.2011 at about 8:15 am, at near Pathshala Chowk, Opp. Pathshala Thana within the jurisdiction of PS Khekra Janpth, Bagpat? OPP.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief Petitioner has examined , Sh. Pradeep Kumar, OT Assistant Technician, Delhi as PW1, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Statistical Assistant as PW 2, Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Sr. Medical Record Technician as PW 3, Ms. Priti Gupta as PW 4 and has tendered her affidavit Ex. PW 4/A and rely upon documents i.e attested copy of criminal case documents Ex. PW 4/1 , treatment record and income tax returns Ex. PW 4/2 to Ex. PW 4/7, Dr. Anubhav Gupta, Consultant , Plastic Surgeon , Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi as PW 5, Sh. Agemdra Kumar , Clinical Specialist & Manager Business Analyst, P & O International Vimhans Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Delhi as PW 6, Sh. Daan Vir Singh, Record Clerk, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, Delhi as PW 7. Respondents have not led any evidence.
I have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the entire evidence on record carefully. My issuewise findings are as below :
5. ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 17 T 1857 by respondent no. 1 on 28.02.2011 at about 8:15 am, at near Pathshala Chowk, Opp. Pathshala Thana within the jurisdiction of PS Khekra Janpth, Bagpat? OPP.
Petitioner has examined herself and deposed about the facts in her affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. PW4/A. Police Station Khekra, Baghpat has registered the offence vide FIR No. 44/11 U/s 279/338 IPC against the respondent no.1.
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 3/15 During cross examination she deposed that she was getting down from the front gate of the bus and she was not the first to deboard the bus and there were many other passengers who deboarded after her. It is further deposed that she did not place on record any prescription slip though the bills have been filed by her and she had purchased the ticket for travelling in the bus but she has not placed on record the same as it was lost at the time of accident. The number of offending vehicle was 1857. It is further deposed that she does not exactly remember whether her legs were crushed under front wheel or rear wheels of the bus. It is further deposed that she also does not remember whether the door from which she got down was either ahead of the wheels or the between the wheels of the bus. It is further deposed that at the time of accident she was going from Shahdara to Khekra and in IT Returns her name is written as Poonam Rani @ Priti Gupta. It is further deposed that she does not know whether she has any medi claim policy or LIC.
Nothing came forward in the cross-examination of petitioner / injured that the respondent no. 1 was not at fault and accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving. Respondent no. 1 has not even entered the witness box to state as to how the accident occurred and has not withstood the test of cross examination whereas the petitioner has stated about the accident on oath.
Moreover, to determine the negligence, 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 279/337 IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo and 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 MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 4/15 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 it was held that, 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.
Therefore , from the statements of the PW 4 and in view of the record of the criminal case regarding the accident, it is proved that injured Priti Gupta @ Poonam Rani sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 28.02.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. UP 17T 1857 driven by its driver i.e Respondent no. 1. This issue is decided accordingly.
6. ISSUE NO.2 Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Disability:-
It is stated by the petitioner in her statement as well as in chief affidavit that she suffered grievous injuries. Petitioner was allowed to get examined at the GTB Hospital for the purpose of assessing disability and the disability certificate was issued. As per the contents of the disability certificate, petitioner suffers from the disability of 85% of right lower limb.
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Statistical Assistant is examined as PW 2, who has brought the original permanent disability certificate, copy of the same is Ex. PW 2/A. MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 5/15 The injured stained grievous crush injuries of right leg fracture and other grievous injuries all over the body as per medical record of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
It is difficult to ascertain in exact terms as to how much the disability in right lower limb has affected the whole body of the petitioner. Counsel for petitioner has argued that as an important limb of petitioner is rendered almost non-functional, the functional disability be considered 100% where as the counsel for insurance has argued that whole body disability be reduced to half. Petitioner during her examination as per clause 26 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure has stated that she is 12 th class passed and presently unable to work due to disability. Considering the age and occupation of the petitioner and the fact that her right lower limb has been amputated, I am of the opinion that 85% of disability can be considered in relation to whole body for the purpose of calculation of future loss of income. Income of deceased:-
As far as income of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated by petitioner in the claim petition as well as chief affidavit Ex. PW 4/A that she was running a boutique and was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Sh. Himanshu Meena , STA, Income Tax Office has been examined as PW8, who has brought the income tax returns record for financial year 2007- 2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Ex.PW8/1 to Ex. PW8/3. It is further deposed that the desired records for financial year 2010-2011 had not been submitted by the assessee in the department and the letter in this regard is Ex. PW8/3A. During cross examination he deposed that no income tax return was filed by the assessee for the financial year 2010-2011. As per the Ex. PW8/1 the annual income of the injured for the assessment year 2008-2009 was Rs. 1,03,500/-. As per the Ex. PW8/2 the annual income of the injured for the assessment year 2009-2010 was Rs. 1,27,560/- and as per Ex. PW8/3 the annual income of the injured for the assessment year 2010-2011 was Rs. 1,83,500/-. Income tax return for the assessment year 2010-2011 has been filed on 31/07/2010 i.e before the MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 6/15 date of accident and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, I do not see any reason not to rely upon Ex. PW8/3 for calculating the future loss of income. Also income tax returns Ex. PW8/1 to PW8/3 shows that income of injured was growing year after year.
Age of deceased:-
As per election ID card Ex. PW 4/8, the injured was 31 years of age as on 01/01/2008. As per the disability certificate dated 15.06.2011, petitioner at the time of examination was aged about 35 years. As per MLC she was 45 years of age on the date of accident. As per adhar card mark M4, 10 th class certificate and PAN Card,the date of birth of injured was 24/03/1967. Therefore, her date of birth is taken to be 24/03/1967 and thus, she was 44 years old at the time of accident. Applying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Smt. Sarla Verma vs DTC 2009 AIR (SC) 3104", the multiplier applicable in the present case is 14 for the purpose of calculating future loss of income.
The law has been well settled that the compensation has to be awarded in disability injury cases under following heads:- (1) for loss of earnings during the period of treatment (2) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (3) expenses suffered by him on his treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food etc. In addition, he is further entitled to non-
pecuniary damages/general damages which include (1) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (2) loss of prospects of marriage & (3) loss of expectation of life.
Treatment expenses:-
Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Sr. Medical Record Technician, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as PW 3, who has deposed that Ms. Priti Gupta was admitted in their hospital on 28.02.2011 and was discharged on 09.03.2011 and she was again admitted on 30.03.2011 and was discharged on 01.04.2011 under the care of Dr. Mahesh Mangal, copy of the discharge summary is Ex. PW 3/A, copy of the second discharge summary of the petitioner dated 01.04.2011 Ex. PW 3/B, copy MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 7/15 of the bills of the petitioner dated 30.03.2011 Ex. PW 3/C and Bills dated 28.02.2011 Ex. PW 3/D, copy of he treatment record for the period of 28.02.2011 to 09.03.2011 is Ex. PW 3/E and treatment record of the petitioner for the period 30.03.2011 to 01.04.2011 Ex. PW3/F. Sh. Daan Vir Singh, Record Clerk, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, who has brought the MLC of patient and copy of the same is Ex. PW 7/A. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, OT Assistant Technician is examined as PW 1, who has brought the carbon copies of receipts and same had been issued from their dressing center to the petitioner, same is Ex. PW 1/A. During cross examination he deposed that he has been working with Delhi Dressing Services for the last 7 months and he has not done any medical course for the said post and Delhi Dressing Services is not a nursing home or hospital.
Dr. Anubhav Gupta is examined as PW 5 who deposed that Smt. Priti Gupta @ Poonam Rani was under his treatment for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident. It is further deposed that doctors operated on the petitioner and her right leg was amputated and the discharge summary given by the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital after the treatment of the petitioner is Ex. PW 3/A, the other prescription and treatment of the petitioners is ex. PW 3/A to F. It is further deposed that an artificial limb can be used by the petitioner, but the amputation of the leg is done above the knee and therefore, the petitioner cannot be normal with artificial limb and petitioner cannot climb the stairs with artificial limb as the amputation is above the knee without the help of an attendant.
As per bills filed on record, petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs. 2,58,269/- towards treatment and therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,58,269/- as per bills on record. Future Treatment expenses / Aid:-
Sh. Agendra Kumar, Clinical Specialist & Manager Business Analyst , P & O International, Vimhans Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Delhi has been examined as PW 6 who deposed that documents already Ex. PW4 /6 has been issued by their MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 8/15 company and the liner of artificial limb which is made of silicon material needs to be changed after every 6 months and it costs Rs. 13,000/- every time. It is further deposed that petitioner has to visit two times for the purpose of changing liner and socket of artificial limb needs to be changed every two year and cost is Rs. 40,000/- and the life of the artificial limb is for 5 years with the abovesaid changes.The entire cost of the artificial limb is Rs. 2,60,000/-. During cross examination he deposed that their company manufactures the artificial limb and the maintenance of artificial limb with regard to its alignment is free for five years.
Petitioner has also filed bills for an amount of Rs. 3,38,111/- and this amount is incurred by her towards implantation of artificial limb, its repair from time to time and purchase of wheel chair. Petitioner is also entitled to this amount of Rs. 3,38,111/- as per bills filed on record.
Petitioner is still 45-46 years of age and certainly would require more than one artificial limb during her life time. Artificial limb would have to be replaced from time to time and some amount would also be incurred on maintenance of artificial limb.
Thus, it is deemed fit that an amount of Rs. 600,000/- be awarded to petitioner towards cost of implantation of the artificial limb in future and an additional amount of Rs. 200,000/- be awarded towards maintenance cost of artificial limb and future medical expenses etc. It seems that petitioner would at least replace her limb once more during her liftime and may also have to purchase the same more than once depending upon the number of years she survives.
As the amount awarded towards implantation of artificial limb and toward its maintenance, cost is calculated as on date and is awarded as per its cost as on date, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the above said amount of Rs. 800,000/-. However, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% on the above said amount of Rs. 800,000/- from the date of the award till it is deposited by insurance co. with the tribunal.
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 9/15 Loss of income during treatment period:-
As per the record available, injured was initially taken to Raksha Hospital, Baghpat, On the same day , she was removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Thereafter she was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital where MLC was prepared. Again she was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on the same day, where the doctors amputated the right leg of the petitioner above knee. The petitioner remained admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital from 28.02.2011 to 09.03.2011, thereafter she was admitted on 30.03.2011 and discharge on 01.04.2011. During that period the operation was performed on 28.02.2011, 02.03.2011, 04.03.2011 am 30.03.2011. Looking to the nature of injuries, it is felt that she must have taken rest for at least 6 months and thus, she is entitled for loss of income for a period of 6 months.
PECUNIARY EXPENSES / COMPENSATION Diet, Conveyance and Attendant Charges:-
Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the Claimant i.e permanent disability of right lower limb and the fact that she was under constant treatment, she would have definitely needed an Attendant to look after her and the claimant is therefore, entitled to attendant charges. Petitioner has not filed any record to show that she has received help of special attendant however, some family member must have been attending her. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita AIR 1981 Delhi 558, a Division Bench of this Court held that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members, for the benefit of the tortfeasor. In the circumstances, and in view of the nature of injuries, it is deemed fit that a lump sum of Rs. 80,000/- be awarded as compensation towards Attendant charges. Petitioner has not shown anything for spending money on special diet but she has gone for follow up check ups and must have been given special diet for speedy recovery. Thus, Rs. 40,000/- is awarded for special diet and Rs.12,960/- towards conveyance charges (as per actual bills filed). Future loss of income:-
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 10/15 The loss of future income due to disability is calculated as below:
Rs. 1,83,500/- (annual) X 14 (multiplier)= Rs. 25,69,000/- Rs. 25,69,000 + Rs. 7,70,700/- (30% future prospects) = Rs. 33,39,700/-. Rs. 33,39,700/- X 85% = Rs. 28,38,745/-.
NON PECUNIARY EXPENSES:-
In Zahid Khan Vs. Arun Mandal and others, 2016 ACJ 1142 in which injured was labourer and suffered 85% permanent disablement due to amputation of right leg, Rs. 100,000/- was awarded as pain and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs. 1,75,000/- for amputation of leg and disfigurement, Rs. 200,000/- for artificial limb and Rs. 200,000/- for future medical and other expenses.
Accordingly, compensation is calculated as below:
NON-PECUNIARY COMPENSATION Compensation towards pain and suffering Rs. 100,000/- Compensation towards loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/- Compensation towards disfiguration and Rs.1,50,000/- amputation of leg Total non-pecuniary compensation Rs. 400,000/-
PECUNIARY COMPENSATION
Loss of Income for 6 months Rs. 91,750/-
Loss of future income due to permanent Rs. 28,38,745/- disability Compensation towards salary of attendant Rs. 80,000/-
Compensation towards special diet Rs. 40,000/-
Compensation towards conveyance Rs. 12,960/-
Medical bills (treatment expenses) Rs. 2,58,269/-
Bills of artificial limb & its repair etc. Rs. 3,38,111/-
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal
P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi
Page 11/15
Artificial limb to be implanted in future Rs. 600,000/- Interest not payable
Future Medical expenses such as Rs. 200,000/- Interest not payable
maintenance of artificial limb etc.
Total Rs. 44,59,835/-
Thus, the total compensation amount is Rs. 48,59,835/-
7. Liability Injured was examined as per clause 26 of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure wherein she stated that she is 12th class passed and presently unable to work due to disability. Earlier she was doing the work of tailoring and earned Rs. 20,000-25,000/- per month. She has a husband and four children in her family. She has stated that the amount she would get from the tribunal will be utilised by her for future treatment and maintenance of artificial limb.
Injured is entitled to an amount of Rs. 48,59,835/-. Out of the abovesaid award amount, an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith corresponding interest (from the date of award) is be deposited by way of separate cheque and the same be kept in separate account and the amount be utilised for implantation of artificial limbs of the injured and for expenses to be incurred for its repair / replacement in future from time to time.
Accordingly, Respondent no. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,59,835/- (including interim compensation, if any), by way of depositing cheque in the account of Priti Gupta, petitioner having account in Union Bank of India, Naveen Shahdara, New Delhi bearing account no. 307602010067449 along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the petition (03/05/2011) within 30 days. In default, respondents no.3 shall be liable to pay penal interest on the award amount @ 12% p.a. for the default period.
In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimla Devi, MAC APP. 547/2016 vide its order dated 25/07/2016 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that "This court is of the view that if the deceased would have been alive, his family MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 12/15 members would have received a portion of his income every month and not a lump sum amount at any point of time. The purpose of awarding compensation is to put the family members of the deceased in the same financial position. As such, it would be appropriate to ensure that the family members get reasonable amount of compensation every month like they would have received if the deceased had been alive".
As per clause 28 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure ,depending upon the financial status and financial need of the claimant, the tribunal has to release the amount as considered necessary and remaining amount be kept in FDR in phased manner. Injured, if would have kept on earning or working, she would have received monthly salary and not lumpsum amount at any point of time.
Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Naveen Shahdara, New Delhi is thus, directed to keep a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- in fixed deposit in the following manner and the remaining amount be released in her account.
Sr. No. Duration of FDR Petitioner FDR amount 1 1 year Rs. 300,000/- 2 2 years Rs. 300,000/- 3 3 years Rs. 300,000/- 4 4 years Rs. 300,000/- 5 5 years Rs. 300,000/- 6 6 years Rs. 300,000/- 7 7 years Rs. 300,000/- 8 8 years Rs. 300,000/- 9 9 years Rs. 300,000/- 10 10 years Rs. 300,000/- 11 11 years Rs. 300,000/- 12 12 years Rs. 300,000/- Total Rs. 36,00,000/-
The Bank shall further comply with following directions :-
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 13/15
(a) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the injured.
(b) The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(c) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant.
(d) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. However, a photo identity card be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal be permitted upon production of the identity card.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The Bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim.
(g) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in the Tribunal. Copy of the award be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Union Bank of India, Naveen Shahdara, New Delhi alongwith the court stamped copy of the photographs, specimen signatures, proof of residence and bank account details of the petitioner. (as per clause 27 of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure).
A separate cheque in the name of PO, MACT , North East for an amount of Rs. 800,000/- alongwih interest 9% per annum from date of award (22/09/2016) be also deposited by the insurance company towards cost of artificial limb within 30 days of the award . In default, respondents no.3 shall be liable to pay penal interest on the abovesaid amount @ 12% p.a. for the default period . The petitioner can approach the present tribunal from time to time for release of the above amount for implantation of the artificial limb. It is further directed that amount shall be released to P & O International Inc. Vimhans Artificial Limbs Centre, Vimhans Hospital, Nehru Nagar or any other company MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi Page 14/15 from which petitioner intended to purchase artificial limb directly from tribunal as per bills / quotation received for implantation of the artificial limb and its maintenance from time to time.
Attested copies of the award be furnished to the concerned parties from court for compliance and be sent to the court of concerned Ld. MM & DLSA.
8. Put up for compliance on 22/10/2016.
Pronounced in Open Court on (KIRAN BANSAL)
22/09/2016 P.O. MACT(North-East)
KKD Delhi
MACT NO. 210/11 Kiran Bansal
P.O. MACT (North-East), Delhi
Page 15/15