Delhi District Court
Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mittal vs Sh. Om Prakash on 8 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Suit No.: 587/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 6043/2016
1. Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mittal
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
2. Smt. Santosh Mittal
W/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mittal
Both R/o H. No. C-36B, Uppar Ground Floor,
Janta Garden, Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase-I,
Delhi-110091
Suit No.: 588/16
Unique Case I.D. No.: 6044/2016
Sh. Ankur Sagar
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o H. No. B-164, Rajveer Colony,
Street No. 1, Gharoli Extension,
Delhi-110096
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Om Prakash
S/o. Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H. No. B-4/430, Nand Nagri,
Delhi-110093
..... Driver
2. Sh. Bali Tyagi
S/o. Sh. Jagdish
R/o. H. No. 59, Dundaheda-1,
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh
..... Owner
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
H-59, Kailash Colony Market,
New Delhi-110048
..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 1 of 23
Date of institution : 04.06.2016
Reserved for orders: 20.11.2017
Date of Award : 08.01.2018
JUDGMENT
Brief facts:
1. On 27.12.2015 at 8.10 p.m., Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal and Mr. Ankur Sagar alongwith their friends Mukul Sharma, Sumit Rana, Prateesh Parkar and Setu Ratan were travelling from Manali to Delhi in motor vehicle described as Toyota Innova bearing registration No. UP-14 AT-3963 (the car) which fell into gorge near HPMC Khooni Mor, PS Bangana, Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh allegedly due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 / driver. Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal died as a result of injuries and Mr. Ankur Sagar suffered serious injuries.
The said accident was subject matter of FIR No. 171/15 under section 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at PS Bangana, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Two accident claim cases under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) i.e. one being Suit No. 587/16 was instituted by parents of Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal (the deceased) for seeking compensation and other being Suit No. 588/16 was instituted by Mr. Ankur Sagar for seeking compensation for the injuries suffered, impleading inter alia, the respondent No. 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the car, it admittedly, being insured against third party risk with the respondent No. 3 / insurer for the period in question.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 2 of 23
3. On being noticed, the respondent No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement. According to them, Mukul Sharma was friend of the respondent No. 2 and he had taken the car for his use. The respondent No. 2 had given the car with driver. They denied that the accident took place on account of any negligent act of the respondent No. 1. They denied the accident.
4. The respondent No. 3 / insurer, in its written statement, conceded that the car was insured with it for the period in question. It pleaded breach of term and condition of insurance policy on the ground that the car was used for hire and reward.
5. The respondent No. 1 and 2, in their rejoinder, reiterated their case as pleaded in their joint written statement. Issues:
6. On the pleadings, following issues, in Suit No. 587/16, were framed:
(i) Whether Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal died in a motor vehicular accident on 27.12.2015 at about 8.10 p.m. near HPMC Khuni Mor, PS Bangana, Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh within jurisdiction of PS Bangana due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No. UP 14 AT 3963 by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward in breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy?
(OPR3)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP) Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 3 of 23
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, to what rate of interest and for which period?
(OPP)
(v) Relief.
7. Following issues, in Suit No. 588/16, were framed:
(i) Whether Mr. Ankur Sagar sustained grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 27.12.2015 at about 8.10 p.m. near HPMC Khuni Mor, PS Bangana, Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh within jurisdiction of PS Bangana due to rash and negligent driving of Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No. UP 14 AT 3963 by the respondent No. 1?
(OPP)
(ii) Whether the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward in breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy?
(OPR3)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(OPP)
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, to what rate of interest and for which period?
(OPP)
(v) Relief.
8. Vide order dated 07.01.2017, both accident claim cases were consolidated and Suit No. 587/16 was treated as leading case.
Evidence:
9. PW-1 Ankur Sagar filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He deposed about the manner of the accident.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 4 of 23
10. PW-1 Ankur Sagar relied on discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 (colly, 5 sheets), case summary Ex.PW1/2, treatment record (OPD cards) Ex.PW1/3 (colly, 5 sheets), medical bills of Rs. 7,82,788/- (including physiotherapy bills) Ex.PW1/4 (colly, 67 sheets), transport bills Ex.PW1/5 (colly, 26 sheets), academic certificates (including Bachelor in Fine Art) Ex.PW1/6 (colly, 11 sheets), driving license Ex.PW1/7, criminal case record and challan Ex.PW1/8 (colly, 20 sheets) and aadhaar card Mark 'X'. He filed additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A1. He relied on original medical bills and physiotherapy bills Ex.PW1/9 (colly, 49 pages) and transport and taxi bills Ex.PW1/10 (colly, 15 pages).
11. PW-2 Jagdish Prasad Mittal filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He relied on academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW2/1 (colly, 5 sheets), aadhaar card of the petitioners Ex.PW2/2 (colly, 2 sheets), copy of ration card Ex.PW2/3 and copy of challan / criminal case record including post-mortem report Ex.PW2/4 (colly, 26 sheets).
12. PW-2 Dr. Ankit Khurana, Senior Resident (Ortho), GTB Hospital, Delhi proved disability certificate Ex.PW2/A and muscle power assessment chart for lower limb Ex.PW2/B.
13. R1W1 Omprakash filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A.
14. R2W1 Bali Tyagi filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. He stated that Mukul Sharma and Karan were known to him. He stated that he had provided the car with driver to them without any rent or reward. He stated that the car was his personal car and he never used it for commercial purposes.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 5 of 23
15. R3W1 Vineet Kumar, Assistant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed his authorization letter Ex.R3W1/A. He relied on notices under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1, postal receipts Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3 respectively and insurance policy of the offending vehicle Ex.R3W1/4.
Final arguments:
16. I have heard arguments of Sh. Manak Chand, Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2, and Ms. Sarika Goel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 / insurer and examined the evidence, oral and documentary.
(Suit No. 587/16 and 588/16):
Issue No. 1:
17. In an accident claim case founded on the principle of fault liability, proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sina qua non. (See: 'Rajendra Jha vs Ms. Arti Rohatgi and Anr.', 2006 ACJ 2729)
18. In order to discharge burden of proof, Mr. Ankur Sagar appeared as PW-1. He deposed, on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the sequence of events leading to the accident. In his evidence, he proved that on 27.12.2015 at about 8.10 p.m., he alongwith his friends namely Mukul Sharma, Sumit Rana, Ankit Kumar Mittal, Saitu and Prateesh Parkar was travelling from Manali to Delhi in Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No. UP-14 AT-3963. He proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the car in high-speed.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 6 of 23
19. PW-1 Ankur Sagar proved that when the car reached near HPMC Khooni Mor, the respondent No. 1 lost control over the car and it fell into 150 meters deep trench. He stated that all the occupants of the car except Mukul Sharma received injuries and Ankit Kumar Mittal died on the spot. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. His evidence finds corroboration from the record of the corresponding criminal case.
20. From the site plan of the place of the accident, it is seen that the width of the road was 24 foot and there was 18 foot kachcha road besides the metalled road. The fact that the car was driven in a break-neck speed can be judged from the fact that the car not only came on the kachcha road but it covered the entire kachcha road and fell into gorge. There were 8 foot skid marks on kachcha road adjacent to gorge.
21. It is proved that the respondent No. 1 was driving the car in unusual high-speed in hilly terrain and he could not control his car and fell into gorge at a distance of 18 foot from the main road despite applying brakes for 8 foot on kachcha road. Any driver driving on hilly terrain should drive the motor vehicle in a controlled speed. Driving a motor vehicle on hilly terrain in such unusual high-speed is an evidence of rash and negligent driving of the car.
22. From the post-mortem report, it is evident that Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal died on account of 'severe head injuries and haemorrhagic shock'.
23. Mr. Ankur Sagar suffered T12-11 fracture dislocation with AIS-A neurology with bladder and bowel involvement.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 7 of 23
24. It is therefore, proved that Mr. Ankit Kumar Mittal died and Mr. Ankur Sagar suffered grievous injuries and consequent disablement due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the respondent No. 1.
25. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Issue No. 2:
26. The respondent No. 3 / insurer pleaded breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the ground that the car was insured as a private vehicle and it was being used for hire and reward. It examined R3W1 Vineet Kumar, Assistant, National Insurance Co. to further its case. He proved notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC issued to the respondent No. 1 and 2 Ex.R3W1/1 and postal receipts Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3 respectively. It proved a copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/4.
27. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the respondent No. 3 / insurer is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 / insured as the car was being used for hire and reward. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that there is no evidence that the car was being used for hire and reward. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 had given the car to Sh. Mukul Sharma and Karan who were known to him on account of family relation without any reward or rent. He submitted that Mr. Mukul Sharma and Karan had asked the respondent No. 2 to provide the car as they intended to go to Manali. He submitted that there is no breach of any term and condition of insurance policy.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 8 of 23
28. Besides pleading the breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the respondent No. 3 / insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the car was being used for hire and reward. The respondent No. 2 / insured categorically stated that Sh. Mukul Sharma and Karan were known to him and he had provided the car alongwith driver to them without any rent or reward. R1W1 Om Prakash denied the suggestion that the car was not used as a personal vehicle or that it was used for hire and reward. The respondent No. 3 / insurer did not examine Mr. Mukul Sharma and Karan and other surviving occupants of the car to prove its case. R3W1 Vineet Kumar has not stated as to how the respondent No. 3 / insurer ascertained that the car was being used for hire and reward. In fact, there is no evidence to prove that the car was being used for hire and reward.
29. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the respondent No. 1 / driver and 2 / owner, and against the respondent No. 3 / insurer.
Issue No. 3 (Suit No. 587/16):
30. The petitioners being parents of the deceased are entitled to seek compensation for his death. Assessment of income of the deceased:
31. The case of the petitioners, in the petition, is that the deceased was a bachelor of Fine Arts. According to them, he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by imparting tuitions and participating in exhibition. PW-2 Jagdish Prasad Mittal, father of the deceased, in affidavit Ex.PW2/A, stated that the deceased was imparting tuitions to Art Student and participating in exhibitions and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 9 of 23
32. PW-2 Jagdish Prasad Mittal proved academic certificates of the deceased Ex.PW2/1. The deceased did Bachelor of Fine Art from University of Delhi in the year 2014. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove income of the deceased from exhibition. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by imparting tuitions to Art students.
33. In the absence of any evidence of regular income of the deceased, the Tribunal is constrained to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages as payable to graduate in Delhi at the relevant time.
34. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is notionally assessed as Rs. 12,142/-, it being the prevalent rates of minimum wages as payable to a graduate in Delhi. Deduction for personal and living expenses:
35. The deceased was a bachelor. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. Therefore, 50% of the income of the deceased is deducted towards personal and living expenses. (See: Sarla Verma versus DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121). Application of multiplier:
36. The date of birth of the deceased, as mentioned in his academic certificates Ex.PW2/1 (colly), is 12.03.1987. The deceased died on 27.12.2015. His age was about 28 years, 9 months and 15 days at the time of his death. Therefore, multiplier of 17 as applicable to age group 26-30 would apply.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 10 of 23 Future prospects:
37. In the absence of any evidence of regular employment and income, the deceased would fall in the category of 'self-employed' person. In view of dispensation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, there shall be 40% addition of income. Loss of dependency:
38. Applying the multiplier of 17 after deducting 50% from the notional income of the deceased, loss of dependency is computed as (12,142 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 17) = Rs.
17,33,877.6 (rounded of) Rs. 17,34,000/-. Non-pecuniary (general) damages:
39. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 15,000/- each added towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Issue No. 3 (Suit No. 588/16):
40. Mr. Ankur Sagar suffered grievous injuries and consequent disablement and therefore, he is entitled to seek compensation.
Pain and suffering:
41. The petitioner proved discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 and case summary Ex.PW1/2. The petitioner was admitted on 27.12.2015 in District Government Hospital, Barsar, Distt.
Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh as a case of road side accident (RSA). He was not able to move his both legs. He was referred to Higher Centre for further management. He was diagnosed to have suffered D12 L2 fracture dislocation. The nature of the injury was opined as 'grievous'.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 11 of 23
42. The petitioner was admitted on 30.12.2015 at 12.04 a.m. in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He was diagnosed to have suffered T12-11 fracture dislocation with AIS-A neurology with bladder and bowel involvement. He was discharged on 13.02.2016. He underwent surgical process on 30.12.2015 for D-11 L-3 posterior stabilization and fusion with local bone graft under general anesthesia. The petitioner was eventually assessed to have suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs.
43. In view of the nature of the injuries, prolonged treatment as well as the consequent disability, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Medical expenses:
44. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 7,82,788/- towards medical expenses including physiotherapy bills vide Ex.PW1/4 (colly). He further claimed Rs. 1,82,641/- towards medical expenses including physiotherapy bill Ex.PW1/9 (colly). The petitioner suffered medical expenses to the extent of Rs. 4,45,490/- in receiving treatment from Indian Spinal Injuries Centre. He was advised physiotherapy at the time of discharge as mentioned in discharge summary Ex.PW1/1. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 9,65,429/- (rounded of) = Rs. 9,66,000/- towards medical expenses and physiotherapy. Loss of income:
45. The petitioner claimed that he is a Bachelor of Fine Art and he was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month by imparting tuitions to Art students and participating in Art exhibitions.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 12 of 23
46. The petitioner has proved his academic certificates Ex.PW1/6 (colly). The petitioner has done Bachelor of Fine Art in the year 2016 from University of Delhi. The petitioner has not led any evidence to prove any income from Art exhibitions. He has not led any evidence to prove income from tuitions.
47. The petitioner, in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, has not stated the period during which he could not work or engage in any gainful employment due to the injuries and consequent disability.
48. The petitioner received treatment as an indoor patient from Indian Spinal Injuries Centre till 13.02.2016. According to discharge summary, he was asked to come after six weeks for review. According to OPD cards Ex.PW1/3 (colly), the petitioner visited Indian Spinal Injuries Centre on 15.03.2016, 29.04.2016, 04.08.2016 and 30.11.2016.
49. In view of the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment, the petitioner deserves to be granted loss of income for six months.
50. In the absence of any evidence of regular income of the petitioner, his income is notionally assessed on the benchmark of minimum wages as payable to a graduate as applicable in Delhi at the relevant time, it being Rs. 12,142/- per month.
51. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded (12,142 x 6) = Rs. 72,852 (rounded of) = Rs. 73,000/- towards loss of income for six months.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 13 of 23 Loss of future income:
52. The petitioner was assessed to have suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs. The petitioner was a case of spine trauma with paraplegia with bladder bowel involvement. PW-2 Ankit Khurana, Sr. Resident (Ortho), GTB Hospital, Delhi / member of the disability board proved disability certificate Ex.PW2/A. The disability is non- progressive. He stated that there is remote possibility of any improvement in future. He was examined by the Tribunal under section 165 of the Evidence Act. He stated that the cause of disability was trauma to the spinal code with vertebral body fracture D-12 to L-2. He stated that the disability is permanent and not likely to improve. He stated that the petitioner can work as a fine artist while sitting on a chair or a wheel-chair. He stated that the petitioner can not work as a fine artist in standing position.
53. The petitioner, in his examination by the Tribunal, stated that he is a graphic designer (free lancer). He is earning Rs. 18,000 to 20,000/- per month from tuitions. He stated that he is earning Rs. 20,000 to 30,000/- from on-line work. He stated that he is earning Rs. 30,000 to 50,000/- per month. The petitioner, in his evidence Ex.PW1/A, has not stated that he could not engage in any gainful activity or earn on account of disability suffered by him.
54. From the discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 and case summary Ex.PW1/2, the petitioner requires wheel-chair assistance for mobility.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 14 of 23
55. In view of the nature of avocation, nature of the disability and impact of the disability on the earning capacity of the petitioner, functional disability of the petitioner is assessed to be 50%.
56. The petitioner could not work for six months from the date of the accident i.e. till 27.06.2016. Therefore, loss of future income is computed on the benchmark of minimum wages as payable to a graduate at the relevant time i.e. Rs. 12,622/- per month.
57. The petitioner proved his academic certificates Ex.PW1/6 (colly). The date of birth of the petitioner in his academic record is 04.02.1992. The petitioner was 24 years, 4 months and 23 days as on 27.06.2016. Therefore, multiplier of 18 as applicable to age group 21-25 would apply.
58. In the absence of any evidence of regular employment and income, the petitioner would fall in the category of 'self-employed' person. In view of dispensation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017, there shall be 40% addition of income.
59. Therefore, loss of future income of the petitioner is computed as (12,622 x 50 / 100 x 140 / 100 x 12 x 18) = Rs. 19,08,446.4/- (rounded of) Rs. 19,09,000/-. Attendant charges:
60. According to discharge summary Ex.PW1/1 and case summary Ex.PW1/2, the petitioner needs wheel-chair assistance for mobility. PW-2 Dr. Ankit Khurana stated that the petitioner would require assistance in activities involving use of lower limbs.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 15 of 23
61. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner requires assistance of an attendant. The nature of impairment primarily restrictions of movements of hip joint, knee joint and ankle joint. He is able to perform the activities involving the use of upper limbs. Therefore, the petitioner is granted attendant charges on the basis of half of minimum wages as payable to an unskilled worker at the relevant time.
62. Therefore, the petitioner is granted (9,178 / 2 x 6) = Rs. 27,534/- (rounded of) = Rs. 28,000/- towards attendant charges for the period of six months since the date of the accident.
63. The petitioner is granted (9,568 / 2 x 140 / 100 x 12 x
18) = Rs. 14,46,681.60/- (rounded of) = Rs. 14,47,000/- towards future attendant charges.
Loss of enjoyment of life / amenities:
64. In view of the fact that the permanent disability sustained by the petitioner is non-progressive and not likely to improve, it would have lasting affect on the petitioner. The petitioner would not be able to stand. He cannot do any floor level activity like sitting, squatting and cross leg sitting. He would require assistance in performing activities involving use of lower limbs. The petitioner is awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life / amenities.
Special diet:
65. The petitioner has not proved any prescription or bill advising him any special diet. In view of the nature of the injuries and prolonged treatment, the petitioner is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 16 of 23 Conveyance:
66. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 3,32,100/- towards conveyance charges. He relied on conveyance bills Ex.PW1/5 (colly) and Ex.PW1/10 (colly). The petitioner received treatment as an indoor patient since 30.12.2015 to 13.02.2016 in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi. He visited the said Centre for review on 15.03.2016, 29.04.2016, 04.08.2016 and 30.11.2016. Conveyance bills Ex.PW1/5 (colly) and Ex.PW1/10 (colly) neither mention the rate per kilometer nor the distance. The petitioner has not examined the concerned transporter to prove the said bills. Moreover, the serial number of bill does not inspire confidence. Bill No. 216 dated 29.12.2015 for an amount of Rs. 13,000/- followed by Bill No. 217 dated 03.01.2016 for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. It is relevant to mention that the period mentioned in the bill is the period during which the petitioner was receiving treatment as an indoor patient in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj. It does not stand to reason that no other bill was made between 29.12.2015 to 03.01.2016. Similarly, Bill No. 220 dated 10.01.2016 is followed by Bill No. 224 dated 17.01.2016 and only three bills stated to have been issued between the intervening seven days. Bill No. 228 dated 24.01.2016 is followed by Bill No. 231 dated 31.01.2016. It means only two bills were issued during seven days. Bill No. 240 dated 29.02.2016 is followed by Bill No. 245 dated 04.03.2016. Bill No. 258 dated 25.03.2016 is followed by Bill No. 261 dated 08.04.2016. It is therefore, evident that the bills relied by the petitioner are highly doubtful and no reliance can be placed upon them.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 17 of 23
67. In view of the fact that the petitioner suffered accident in Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh and he was brought to Delhi and he visited hospital for 4-5 times for review, he is awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance.
Liability:
68. The respondent No. 3 / insurer has not been able to prove breach of any term and condition of insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 / insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the respondent No. 2 / insured incurred by him being vicariously liable for the liability of the respondent No. 1 / principal tort-feasor.
AWARD Suit No. 587/16:
69. The respondent No 3 / insurer is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 17,64,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition (04.06.2016) till the date of award. In case, the respondent No. 3 / insurer fails to make payment within 30 days, it would be liable to pay the award amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sangeeta Devi, MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). Apportionment of the award:
70. The petitioners shall be entitled to the award amount in the ratio of 40:60.
Final directions:
71. The Tribunal has examined the petitioner No. 2 under Clause 26 of Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP) regarding her monthly financial need.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 18 of 23
72. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr., MAC APP. 422/2009, Manager, Canara Bank, Subji Mandi, New Delhi-110020 and Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Jyoti Colony, Delhi-110094 are directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioners namely Jagdish Prasad Mittal and Smt. Santosh Mittal and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank are directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass-books of the petitioners to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the pass-books. The petitioners are directed to produce the original pass-books with the necessary endorsement as well as aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal.
73. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), an amount of Rs. 5,600/- out of Rs. 7,05,600/-, be released into the savings bank account of the petitioner No. 1 / Jagdish Prasad Mittal and balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest will be secured in the following manner:
Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 70,000/ 6 months
2. Rs. 70,000/ 1 year
3. Rs. 70,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 70,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 70,000/ 30 months
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 19 of 23
6. Rs. 70,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 70,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 70,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 70,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 70,000/ alongwith accrued interest 60 months
74. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), an amount of Rs. 58,400/- out of Rs. 10,58,400/-, be released into the savings bank account of the petitioner No. 2 / Santosh Mittal and balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest will be secured in the following manner:
Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 1,00,000/ 6 months
2. Rs. 1,00,000/ 1 year
3. Rs. 1,00,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 1,00,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 1,00,000/ 30 months
6. Rs. 1,00,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 1,00,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 1,00,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 1,00,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 1,00,000/ alongwith accrued interest 60 months
AWARD
Suit No. 588/16:
75. The respondent No 3 / insurer is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 47,73,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition (04.06.2016) till the date of award.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 20 of 23
76. In case, the respondent No. 3 / insurer fails to make payment within 30 days, it would be liable to pay the award amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sangeeta Devi, MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
77. The petitioner / Ankur Sagar was examined under Clause 26 of Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP) regarding his monthly financial need.
78. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kondli Branch, New Delhi-110096 is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner Ankur Sagar and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass-book of the petitioner to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the pass-book. The petitioner is directed to produce the original pass-book with the necessary endorsement as well as aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal.
79. In accordance with direction in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. (supra), an amount of Rs. 73,000/- out of Rs. 47,73,000/-, be released into the savings bank account of the petitioner Ankur Sagar and balance amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- alongwith accumulated interest will be secured in the following manner:
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 21 of 23 Sl. No. Amount of FDR Period of FDR
1. Rs. 4,70,000/ 6 months
2. Rs. 4,70,000/ 1 year
3. Rs. 4,70,000/ 18 months
4. Rs. 4,70,000/ 24 months
5. Rs. 4,70,000/ 30 months
6. Rs. 4,70,000/ 36 months
7. Rs. 4,70,000/ 42 months
8. Rs. 4,70,000/ 48 months
9. Rs. 4,70,000/ 54 months
10. Rs. 4,70,000/ alongwith accrued interest 60 months
80. Manager, UCO Bank, KKD Courts, Delhi shall retain original FDRs. He shall provide the statement containing FDR numbers, amount, date of maturity and the maturity amount to the petitioners. He shall not encash any of the FDRs before their maturity date without permission of the Tribunal. Copy of Award be given to the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 / insurer for compliance.
81. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma Dated: 08th January, 2018 Presiding Officer MACT (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 22 of 23 Suit No. 588/16 08.01.2018 Present : Sh. Manak Chand, Advocate for the petitioners.
Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Advocate for R1 and R2. Ms. Sarika Goel, Advocate for R3 / Insurance Co.
It is 4.45 p.m. Vide separate judgment, award is passed. Following direction dated 15.12.2017 in Sobat Singh versus Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr., MAC APP. 422/2009, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kondli Branch, New Delhi110096 is directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner Ankur Sagar and if the same have already been issued, the concerned bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner to the effect that no cheque book and / or debit card shall be issued without the permission of the Tribunal. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of the order before the concerned bank whereupon the bank is directed to make an endorsement on the passbook. The petitioner is directed to produce the original passbook with the necessary endorsement as well as aadhaar card and PAN card before the Tribunal. To come up for compliance on 07.02.2018.
Sanjay Sharma PO MACT (East)/KKD Delhi/08.01.2018.
Suit No.: 588/2016 Ankur Sagar vs Om Prakash & Ors. 23 of 23