Delhi District Court
Mact No.332/08, Girish Babu Gupta vs Om Kar Singh Etc. . on 10 May, 2012
1
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
IN THE COURT OF SH. B. S. CHUMBAK, PO MACT EAST
DISTRICT : DLEHI
Petition No. 332/08
Date of filing of the petition 08/05/08
Date of assignment to this court 15/09/2011
Date on which judgment was reserved 07/05/12
Date of award 10/05/12
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SH. GIRISH BABU GUPTA
S/OLT. SH. BHUPENDER PARSAD
R/O H.NO. B-43, SOUTH GANESH NAGAR
DELHI. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. OMKAR SINGH S/O SH. GIAN PARKASH
R/O H. NO. F-120 GALI NO.4,
WEST VINOD NAGAR, DELHI.
2. PANKAJ S/O SH. GIAN PARKASH
R/O H. NO. SP-34, PANDAV NAGR, DELHI
ALSO AT X-1223, CHAND MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR
DELHI.
3. SATPAL SINGH S/O
H. NO. SP-34, PANDAV NAGR, DELHI
R/O X-1223, CHAND MOHALLA GANDHI NAGAR
DELHI.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RO-I, 124, CANNAUGHT CIRCUS,
LEVEL-IV, TOWER-II
JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING NEW DELHI. RESPONDENTS
2
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
5. A W A R D
1. Sh. Girish Babu Gupta s/o Lt. Sh. Bhupender Parsad r/o B-43, South Ganesh Nagar Delhi (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed the present petition u/s 166 & section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1988) against Omkar Singh s/o Sumre Singh, driver (hereinafter referred to as respondent no. 1), Pankaj s/o Sh. Gian Parkash, owner, (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.2) Sat Pal Singh r/o X/1223 Chand Mohlla Gandhi Nagar Delhi, insured (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.3) and National Insurance Company Ltd., RO-I, 124 Cannaught Circus Level IV, Tower II Jevan Bharti Building New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.4) for seeking compensation in lieu of injuries received due to said accident.
2. Petitioner was about 50 years old, was working as a cloth merchant/traders and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month on the day of accident.
3. The brief facts arising out of this case are that on 27/01/2008 at about 11.a.m petitioner was going towards his residence at South Ganesh Nagar after attending Radha Swami Satsang at East Vinod Nagar,Delhi when he reached 3 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . near bus stand at Mayur Vihar Ph-II Delhi, and was trying to get the RTV bus stopped, in the meantime, the driver of said RTV bus bearing registration No. DL-IVA-0905 instead of stopping the RTV, started driving the bus rashly and negligently even without taking cae of the petitioner who was giving signal to stop the said bus, hit with the petitioner, due to that he fell down on the road his right leg was crushed under the rear wheel of offending RTV bus. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Driver of the offending vehicle run away from the spot after causing accident.
4. Petitioner was taken to LBS hospital and was got medically examined vide MLC bearing 527/08. A criminal case was also registered u/s 279/337 IPC at PS Pandav Nagar vide FIR no. 29/08.
5. Petitioner was about 50 years old, was working as a cloth merchant/traders and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month on the day of accident. Pursuant to the said accident petitioner had suffered great mental pain as well as financial losses. The injuries also resulted in 85% permanent disability in relation to his (R ) lower limb. The condition of injured/petitioner is non progressive and not likely to improve.
6. It is further averred that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent 4 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . driving of R-1. R-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insured of the offending vehicle and R4 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, therefore, they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest towards all the heads.
7. Notice of the petition was served upon all the respondents. R1 to R3 filed their written statement controverting all the allegations as alleged in the petition and took many preliminary objection such as the amount claimed in the petition is highly excessive, exaggerated, frivolous and is not based on any formula.
8. It is further averred that accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent Act of the R1 however petitioner himself is responsible for receiving injuries and requested for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. R-4/insurance co. filed their written statement and controverted all the allegations as alleged in the petition and took many preliminary objection such as petitioner has not disclosed any cause of action against the answering respondent. Driver of the vehicle was not holding a proper D/L and was driving the vehicle without any authority of the insured as no permit was ever issued 5 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . to R3/owner of the offending vehicle to ply the said vehicle. Vehicle was also not fit to ply on the road and thereby many provisions of the M.V Act are violated. It is further averred that vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, in reply to para 17 it is admitted that vehicle bearing No. DL-IVA-0905 was insured in the name of R2 vide policy No. 361700/31607/6300000540 and was valid from 21/4/07 to 20/4/08 mid night subject to the term and condition mentioned in the policy issued by the answering respondent. It is further averred that amount claimed in the petition is highly exorbitant, excessive and not based on any formula and requested for dismissal of the petition.
10. After hearing the arguments and on the basis of pleadings from both the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 15.04.2009 of the then Ld. PO, MACT:
I). Whether Sh. Girish Babu Gupta sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of RTV bus No. DL-
1VA-0905 by R1? (OPP) iA) Whether alleged accident was not caused by R1 with alleged vehicle and if so to what effect? OPR1 to R3.
6MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation, if so, from whom and of what amount?
Iii). Relief
11.After framing of issues case was fixed for petitioner's evidence
12.Petitioner/injured himself Girish Babu Gupta appeared as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.P1/A stating therein all the facts which were stated by him in his petition. He also relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/6. Ex. PW1/1 are the original bills of treatment/medicines of injured/petitioner, at various hospital(coll. 34 sheets) Ex. PW1/2 is the discharge summary/prescription of injured ( coll. 107 sheets), Ex. PW1/3 is copy of ID proof of injured ( coll. 2 sheets), Ex.PW1/4 is the copy of PAN Card of injured, Ex. PW1/5 is copy of ITR of injured, Ex.PW1/6 is the copy of disability certificate of injured/petitioner.
13. During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company, he deposed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m prior to the accident and after the said accident he has become unemployed due to the reason that he has 7 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . become permanently disabled. He further deposed that many public persons gathered at the spot but he cannot tell whether statement of any public person was recorded or not, however his statement was recorded at LBS hospital. Rest of his testimony is reiterated by him as stated by him during examination in chief.
14.Sh. Inderjeet Kumar, clerk Rotary Blood Bank appeared as PW2 and proved the receipt No. 83181 amounting to Rs.4400/- which is Ex.PW2/1.
15.Sh. Navin Parashar Proprietor Krishna Surgical Shop No.6,GTB hospital appeared as PW .3 and proved the cash memo amounting to Rs. 19,346/- bearing S.No. 736 Book No. 15 , same is Ex.PW.3/1. He also produced the another receipt amount to Rs.50/- vide Srl. No. 700 Book No. 14 which is Ex.PW3/2.
16.Sh. Chottey Lal Record Clerk Orthonova Hospital Safdarjung Development Area appeared as PW4 the original summoned record including bills amounting to Rs.1,94,994/- collectively Ex.PW.4/2, discharge summary as Ex.PW4/3, treatment record as Ex.PW4/4(46 sheets). He further deposed that patient remained in hospital from 7.2.2008 to 5.3.2008. 8
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
17.Sh. Kapleshwar, Medical Record Technician GTB hospital appeared as PW5 and deposed that petitioner was admitted in GTB Hospital on 27.1.2008 and left the hospital on 5.2.2008 without advise of the doctor. Original record of Girish Babu as Ex.PW.5/1.(coll. 28 sheets).
18.Sh. Virender Singh Ahlawat an Income Tax Officer H block, Vikas Marg Ward 36 New Delhi appeared as PW6 and proved copy of ITR for the assessment year 2007-08 of Girish Babu, as Ex.PW.6/1 and in the said return the taxable income of that year, of the petitioner was shown as Rs.1,17,850/-.
19.Dr. Harish Mansukhani CMO LBS Hospital appeared as PW7 and proved the copy of disability certificate of petitioner Girish Babu Gupta wherein it is opined that patient suffered 85% permanent disability with regard to right lower limb. He further deposed that he was one of the member of the medical board and the permanent disability certificate is Ex.PW.7/1 Thereafter, PE closed and case was fixed for respondents evidence.
20. Sh.Ajay Kumar Jain investigator appeared as R3W1 and deposed that he conducted the investigation with regard to D/L bearing No. 8018/MTR/03 and 9 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . report is Ex.R3W1/A and report from Licensing authority on form No.54 is Ex. R3W1/B. He specifically deposed that the said D/L was not issued by the licensing authority Mathura in the name of Omkar Singh s/o Sh.Sumeri.
21.During his cross-examination he deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the reason of fake-ness of the D/L produced by R1 and he deposed before the court only on the basis of report furnished by concerned RTO.
22.Sh. Ramesh Kumar AO National Insurance Co. appeared as R4W1 and filed his affidavit Ex,R4W1/1 and proved the copy of notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC as Ex.R4W1/A, served upon R1, R2 and R3 in respect of production of licence for commercial purposes. He also proved the copy of documents which are the office record of insurance policy as Ex.R4W1/B and verification report of D/L as Ex.R4W1/C.
23.Sh. Devender Kumar, from Suraj Mal Vihar Authority appeared as R4W2 and and proved the duplicate licence bearing No. P07112004324218 as Ex.R4W2/1 issued on 18.3.2005, in the name of Omkar Singh s/o Sumre Singh and also deposed that the said licence was valid from 2.11.2004 to 9.3.2019 for light motor vehicle(NT). Thereafter, RE closed and case was fixed 10 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . for final arguments.
24. Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner as well as on behalf of respondents heard. On the basis of arguments advanced and the evidence adduced by both the parties my findings on the issues are as follows :
ISSUE -1 & 1A I). Whether Sh. Girish Babu Gupta sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of RTV bus No. DL- 1VA-0905 by R1? (OPP) iA) Whether alleged accident was not caused by R1 with alleged vehicle and if so to what effect? OPR1 to R3.
25.On these issue, the evidence of injured PW1 is very much relevant. In his affidavits he stated all the facts which were stated by him In the petition that on 27/01/2008 at about 11.a.m petitioner was going towards his residence at South Ganesh Nagar after attending Radha Swami Satsang at East Vinod Nagar,Delhi when he reached near bus stand at Mayur Vihar Ph-II Delhi, and was trying to get the RTV bus stopped, in the meantime, the driver of said RTV bus bearing registration No. DL-IVA-0905 instead of stopping the RTV, started driving the bus rashly and negligently even without taking care of the 11 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . petitioner who was giving signal to stop the said bus, hit with the petitioner, due to that he fell down on the road his right leg was crushed under the rear wheel of offending RTV bus. Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Driver of the offending vehicle run away from the spot after causing accident.
26.Petitioner was taken to LBS hospital and was got medically examined vide MLC bearing 527/08. A criminal case was also registered u/s 279/337 IPC at PS Pandav Nagar vide FIR no. 29/08. On the basis of statement of PW.1.
27.The testimony of PW .1 is further corroborated with the fact that injured was taken to hospital which again suggests that petitioner received injuries due to said accident and was taken to hospital for receiving treatment. The offending vehicle was got mechanically inspected. Site plan showing the place of accident was prepared by IO and driving license, RC all were taken in possession by the IO further corroborates the testimony of PW.1.
28.On the other hand R1 and R3 both failed to place an iota of evidence showing thereby that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent Act of R1.
12
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
29.In view of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the petitioner and investigation conducted by the police official and also in the absence of any evidence contrary to the petitioner's evidence I am of the considered view that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of petitioner and other PWs on this issue and accordingly, petitioner succeeded in proving that on 27/01/08 an accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1VA-0905 being driven by R-1.
30.Accordingly, I decide both these issues in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation, if so, from whom and of what amount?
31.As regard the quantum of compensation the petitioner has to be compensated for the actual expenses incurred by him and for the loss of income of his being rendered permanently disabled. Besides non-pecuniary losses are to be assessed on the basis of facts proved.
32.As regards the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner the medical bills to 13 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . the tune of Rs.2,29,511/- are brought on record. I accordingly granted Rs.2,29,511/- towards medical expenses head.
33.On perusal of the medical treatment record it is established that petitioner received grievous injuries resulted into 85% permanent disability in relation to his (R ) lower limb. It is also opined that the condition is non progressive and not likely to be improved.
34. On perusal of discharge summary and medical record of the injured/petitioner and also keeping in view the nature of injuries on the basis of which a disability certificate Ex.PW1/6 is brought on record, I am of the view that petitioner might have taken four months time in resuming his health and healing the injuries. Since he has not filed a cogent evidence with regard to his monthly income,except the income tax return, therefore, the four months time approximately taken by him in resuming his health is to be compensated on the basis of Minimum Wages rates prevailing on the date of accident which comes to Rs. 5278 X4 = Rs.21,112/-.
35. Petitioner claimed his age as 52 years on the date, time and place of accident, therefore, considering all the circumstances as brought on record the 14 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . age of the petitioner on the date of accident should not have been taken as less than 52 years. On the contrary respondents failed to brought on record any evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of PW1.
36. In support of his monthly income the petitioner placed on record the copy of his PAN Card No.APKPB3611B certificate issued by Charted Accountant, computation of Taxable income u/sec. 44(A)(F) of the Income Tax Act, Trading and Profit & Loss account for the period ending on 31/3/2006, Balance sheet as on 31/3/2006 mentioning therein the net profit to the tune of Rs.95,273/- p.a and requested for considering the income of petitioner, as mentioned in the ITR filed by the petitioner.
37. On the contrary ld. counsel for insurance company submitted that neither the proof of doing any business, place of business, sales tax return or any other requisite information proving thereby that the petitioner was doing the business and was earning Rs. 95,273/- p.a. It is further pleaded that neither the proof of proof of yearly gross turn over as mentioned in the computation taxable income nor any statement of bank account showing therein the above mentioned transactions is brought on record and in absence of essential 15 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . evidence mere filing the ITR and the documents discussed above, are not sufficient to prove the income of the petitioner and requested for dismissal of the contention of ld. counsel for petitioner regarding annual income of petitioner.
38. In view of the rival contention of Ld. counsel for both the parties, I am of the considered view that petitioner failed to brought on record any cogent evidence with regard to his income, therefore, in the absence of any proof, income of the petitioner is be to assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages rate prevailing on the date of accident. Therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to take the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5278/- p.m as on the day of accident being an unskilled worker. Since the age of the petitioner was more than 50 years old therefore, he is not entitled for future increase in his salary.
39.For assessing the future compensation in the present case reference is being had to the provisions of Second Schedule Clause (5) of the Motor Vehicle Act which provided as under:-
Clause 5:- Disability in non-fatal accidents:-
The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal 16 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
accidents.
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty two weeks. Plus either of the following:-
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the Multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in Permanent Total Disablement/ Permanent Partial Disablement and percentage of loss of earing capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workman's Compensation Act, 1923.
40.I also placed my reliance on a decided case cited as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298".
41. Following the formula laid down in clause (5) and the observations given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided case and also taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner has not been able to establish the particulars of his employment, therefore, his yearly income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Chart which has already been discussed in preceding para. 17
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
42.The permanent disability in the "right lower limb" to the tune of 85% can safely be assessed as 42.5% permanent disability with regard to the whole body and by applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the petitioner, the compensation towards the loss of future income would be assessed to the tune of Rs. 5278X11x12x85/200 =Rs.2,96,096/-.
43. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that the present case is a case of amputation with 85% disability, therefore, petitioner has become entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards non pecuniary heads and placed his reliance on the decided case cited as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, 2008 ACJ 1330 wherein it is observed that :
"In the cases of amputation the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to the injured person such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in, if he had not sustained the injuries."
and also relied upon a decided case cited as Arun Sondhi Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, I (2001) ACC 615, and Siddhi Gopal Dixit @ Siddh Gopal Dixit Vs Siya Ram & Ors. MACT appeal no. 573/2009 decided on 03.03.2010, I carefully perused the observations given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided case wherein it is observed as under:- 18
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
"A trend which emerges is that between the years 1985 and 1990, the courts have been awarding about Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head 'non-pecuniary damages' for amputation of leg resulting in permanent disability of 50 % and above".
44.However, the pain and suffering of the petitioner in the present case cannot be measured in terms of money as the suffering is going to be with him for his whole life. The present case is a case of amputation of right leg below knee, therefore, in view of the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided case and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the considered view that petitioner has become entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards non pecuniary heads i.e mental pain and agony, conveyance, better diet and attendant etc. I accordingly assessed Rs.3,00,000/- towards on these non pecuniary heads. LIABILITY
45.On this issue Ld. counsel on behalf of petitioner submitted that the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with R-4 and R1 was having the valid driving licence at the time of accident and submitted that R1 being driver, R2 and R3 being owner and insured and R4 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioner. However R4 19 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . insurance company is liable to indemnify R1, R2 and R3.
46.On the other hand ld. counsel for insurance company submitted that initially a driving licence bearing No. 8018/NTR/03 was produced by the driver and during the course of investigation it was revealed that said licence was not issued by licencing authority Mathura in the name of Omkar s/o Sumeri (R1). The verification report is Ex.R3W1/A and report furnished by the licencing authority on form No. 54 is Ex.R3W1/B. It is further submitted that another licence bearing P07712004324218 allegedly issued in the name of Omkar Singh s/o Sumeri Singh was only for the purpose of driving light Motor Vehicle NT which was issued on 2/11/04 and was valid up to 9/3/2019. He further submitted that duplicate licence was issued on 18/3/05 and certified copy of same is Ex.R4W2/1. It is brought on record that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of RTV bus for which R1 was not entitled to drive on the basis of aforesaid licence. Thereby it is established that first licence placed on record was not issued in the name of R1 and second licence was only for the purpose of LMV (NT) and on the basis of said licence, R1 was not entitled to drive the impugned vehicle I.e RTV bus and requested for exoneration of the insurance company for making the payment of compensation. Reliance is also placed on a decided case on a decided case 20 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . cited as National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs. Tulna Devi and Others, 2009 ACJ 58, wherein it is observed as under:
" The breach of policy conditions, e.g., disqualification of driver of invalid driving license of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149,has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time."
and also placed her reliance on a decided case cited as National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh and ors. [2004, 3 SCC 297], wherein it is observed that :-
" We have analysed the relevant provisions of 21 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. .
the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving license. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle,admittedly did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all."
47.After hearing arguments and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the observations given by their lordship in the aforesaid decided cases I am of the considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and in such circumstances Insurance 22 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . Company is only entitled to have the recovery right against R-1, R-2 and R3 the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, however, R-4 cannot be wholly exonerated to make the payment of compensation to the petitioner. This issue is decided accordingly.
48. After hearing arguments on behalf of Ld. counsel for both the parties, I carefully perused the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid case, the petitioner is become entitled for the total amount of compensation towards all the heads as follows:-
Sl.No. On Account of Amount (Rs.)
1 Towards medical expenses. Rs. 2,29,511/-.
2 Towards loss of future income. Rs. 2,96,096/-.
Towards loss of income during Rs.5278 x4 =
3 receiving treatment for 4 months Rs.21,112/-.
4 Towards on non pecuniary heads. Rs.3,00,000/-
Total Rs.8,46,719/-
49. I accordingly, grant a compensation to the tune of Rs.8,46,719/- to 23 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization minus the amount of interim compensation, if any, and interest excepted if any, with the responsibility of insurance company to make the payment of the award amount, however, R-4/insurance company is entitled to right of recovery against R-1, R-2 and R3.
50.. The insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount with upto date interest in Oriental Bank of Commerce branch, F21, Preet Vihar Main Vikas Marg Delhi-1 branch in the name of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of award under the intimation to this court and bank would keep this amount in an account in the name of Judge MACT East and would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is reported.
51. An attested copy of this award alongwith two recent photographs of the petitioners with court stamp be also sent to the bank for facilitating the compliance. Put up for compliance on 04.07.2012.
Announced in the open court (B.S. CHUMBAK)
on 10/05/2012 PO MACT/EAST DISTT.
KKD:DELHI
24
MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . 07/5/2012 Present : Ms. Pooja Goel Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Sachin Kaushik Advocate for insurance Co.
Final arguments heard. Put up for orders on 10/5/2012.
(B.S. CHUMBAK)
PO MACT EAST DISTRICT
07.05.2012
10.05.2012
Present: None.
Final arguments already heard.
Final award to the tune of Rs.8,46,719/- to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization minus the amount of interim compensation, if any and interest excepted if any, with the responsibility of insurance company to make the payment of the award amount, however, R-4/insurance company is entitled to right of recovery against R-1, R-2 and R3.
The insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount with upto date interest in Oriental Bank of Commerce branch, F21, Preet Vihar Main Vikas Marg Delhi-1 branch in the name of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of award under the intimation to this court and bank would keep this amount in an account in the name of Judge MACT East and would wait for the further directions as to the disbursement of the same till the compliance is 25 MACT NO.332/08, GIRISH BABU GUPTA VS OM KAR SINGH ETC. . reported. No order as to costs. An attested copy of this award along with two recent photographs of the petitioners with court stamp be also sent to the bank for facilitating the compliance.
Put up for compliance on 04/07/2012.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) PO MACT EAST DISTRICT 10.05.2012