Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohit Kumar vs Sh. Nirala Kumar Yadav on 9 June, 2022
MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 4443/16
Sh. Mohit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o Village Sikhrani,
P.O. Loni,
District Ghaziabad,
UP. ........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Nirala Kumar Yadav,
S/o Sh. Tej Narayan Yadav,
R/o Village Kalna, PS. Birol,
District Darbanga, Bihar
(Driver)
2. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khetarpal,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o 28, Kohat Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi
(Owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
JMD Regent Plaza, 3rd Floor,
MG Road, Sikandarpur,
Gurugram, Haryana.
(Insurance company)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.02.2015 Date of Arguments : 03.06.2022 Date of Decision : 09.06.2022 Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 APPEARANCES: Ms. Babita Tyagi, Adv for petitioner/injured. None for respondents no. 1 & 2. Sh. Sujit Jaiswal, Adv for Insurance co. Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in motor vehicular accident which occurred on 17.11.2014 at 8.35 am in front of Shri Krishna Vriddha Ashram, Badshahi Road, Khera Kalan, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, involving Truck bearing registration no. HR55A6184 (offending vehicle).
2. According to DAR, on 17.11.2014 at about 8:15 am, the petitioner/injured Mohit(Constable in Delhi Police) was going to Todapur from Alipur Traffic Office for executing summons and depositing cash by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL3SBP8143. At about 8:15 am, when he reached near Shree Krishan Vridh Ashram, Khera Kalan, Badshahi Road, one truck bearing no. HR55A6184 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, came from GTK Road front side of Shree Krishan Vridh Ashram and took a U turn without giving any indicator or blowing horn and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result which, he fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was removed to SRHC Hospital, Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 3723/14. It is claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR55A6184 by its driver/R1 namely Sh. Nirala Kumar Yadav, owned by Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khetarpal/R2 and the same was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd/R3 during the period in question. FIR No. 1331/14, u/s. 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question.
3. In their joint Written Statement, respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. Driver and Registered Owner have claimed that petitioner himself was negligent on his part. It was also contended that the accident took place on account of mechanical fault which got suddenly developed and the steering of the offending vehicle got jammed. Thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Alternatively, they have claimed that the aforesaid Truck was insured with respondent no. 3 as on the date of accident. On merits, they have simply denied the averments made in DAR. They have denied the claim for compensation raised by the petitioner and have prayed for its dismissal.
4. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has claimed that no record of driving licence of the respondent no. 1 has been found as per online verification from the website, hence, the same is fake. It has admitted that vehicle bearing no. HR55A6184 was Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 insured with it during the period in question. It has denied the averments made in the DAR and has prayed for its dismissal.
5. Before proceedings further, it may be noted that the interest on the award amount, if any passed in favour of the petitioners was curtailed w.e.f. 28.05.2019 till final order vide order dated 28.05.2019. Thus, his right to claim interest, if any, has been curtailed from 28.05.19 till final order i.e. 09.06.2022.
6. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.05.2016 :
1) Whether the injured Rohit suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 17.11.2014 at 8:35 am in front of Shri Krishna Vridh Ashram, Badshahi Road, Khera Kalan, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli due to rashness and negligence on the part of the Nirmala (sic Nirala) Kumar Yadav who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR55A6184, owned by Pardeep Khetarpal and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 22
MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022
7. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 ASI Ranbir Singh, Accounts Branch, Traffic, HQ, Toda Pur, Delhi. He closed his PE through his counsel on 04.12.2018. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and their respective RE was closed vide order dated 04.12.2018.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the material available on record. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under: Issue No. 1
9. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Mohit i.e. injured himself is relevant. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) on the lines of averments made in DAR to the effect that on 17.11.2014 at about 8:15 am, he was going to Todapur from Alipur Traffic Office for Dak and cash duty by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL3SBP8143. He further deposed that at about 8:15 am, when he reached at Shree Krishan Vridh Ashram, Khera Kalan, Badshahi Road, one truck bearing no. HR55A6184 which was being driven by its driver at very high speed, rashly and negligently, came from GTK Road front side of Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 Shree Krishan Vridh Ashram and took a U turn without giving any indicator or blowing horn and hit against his motorcycle, as a result which, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that thereafter, he was removed to SRHC Hospital, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 3723/14. He categorically deposed that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR55A6184 by respondent no. 1. He has relied upon the following documents: S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of his office identity card Ex. PW1/2
3. DAR Ex. PW1/3(colly)
4. His salary slip for the month of Ex. PW1/4 April, 2015
5. Copies of medical bills Mark A
6. Copy of his discharge Mark B summary
7. Photocopies of his treatment Mark C papers
10. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that there was no divider on the road where the accident had occurred. He further deposed that he had seen the offending truck from a distance of about 10m prior to the accident. He admitted that there was head on collision between the offending truck and his motorcycle. He Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 denied the suggestion that he was equally negligent and was equally responsible for the accident.
11. It is quite evident from the testimony of the aforesaid witness that the insurance company has failed to impeach his testimony on the aspect of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent no. 1, through litmus test of cross examination. Moreover, the ocular testimony of aforesaid witness is also corroborated by documentary evidence brought on record. FIR No. 1331/14 was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR would show that same was registered on the statement of injured namely Sh. Mohit, wherein he stated about the same sequence of events which led to the accident in question, as narrated by him as PW1 during his testimony recorded in this case. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted(which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC would further show that Investigating Agency also concluded after completion of the investigation that said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing no. HR55A6184 by its driver namely Sh. Nirala Kumar Yadav i.e. R1 herein. Same also points out towards the fact that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by respondent no. 1. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been registered on 17.11.2014 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, there is no possibility Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of truck no. HR55A6184 at the instance of the petitioner.
12. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 /driver of the alleged offending vehicle was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place but still he preferred not to contest the claim petition. He did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR55A6184 by him.
13. Copy of MLC of injured (which is part of DAR) prepared at SRHC Hospital, would show that he had been removed to said hospital on 17.11.2014 at 9:10 am with alleged history of RTA. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
14. Apart from above, the notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act (which is part of DAR) was served upon respondent no. 2/registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. In reply thereto, he mentioned that the said vehicle was being Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 driven by his driver namely Sh. Nirala Kumar Yadav/R1 on 17.11.2014 at about 8:35 am. Said reply also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW1 to that extent.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Sh. Mohit had sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on 17.11.2014 at 8.35 am in front of Shri Krishna Vriddha Ashram, Badshahi Road, Khera Kalan, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR55A6184 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 22MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 MEDICAL EXPENSES
17. PW1 Sh. Mohit i.e. the injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that after the accident, he was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. Thereafter, he took treatment from Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP till 05.12.2014. He also deposed that he had spent a huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ on his treatment. He has relied upon copies of his medical bills and treatment record as Mark A & Mark C respectively. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that his medical expenses were borne by his department. Considering the fact that petitioner/injured himself admitted during his crossexamination that his medical expenses were borne by his department, no amount is being awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME/LEAVES
18. Injured namely Sh. Mohit (PW1) has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he was aged about 25 years; he was working as Constable in Delhi Police and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 27,052/ at the time of accident in question. Due to the accident in question, he had sustained grievous injuries including permanent disability. During crossexamination on behalf of insurance Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 company, he deposed that he was transferred as Constable in 7th Batallion, PTS, Malviya Nagar. He further deposed that after the accident, he rejoined his duty on 23/24.04.2015 and since then, he was doing his duty continuously.
19. PW2 ASI Ranbir Singh is the Official from the office of employer of injured. He produced the service record and appointment letter of injured Ct. Mohit. He exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/1(colly). He has also produced the salary slip of Ct. Mohit Kumar, No. 4408T for the month of November and December 2014 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/2. He has also brought the leave record of Ct Mohit and exhibited the same as Ex. PW2/3. During his crossexamination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that Ct. Mohit was posted at DAP, 7th Batallion, Malviya Nagar. Respondents no. 1 & 2 did not crossexamine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
20. As noted above, the petitioner/injured was working as Constable in Delhi Police and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 27,052/ at the time of accident. The relevant portion of the testimony of petitioner examined as PW1, has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents. Moreover, the petitioner has also proved his salary slip for the month of November & December 2014 which is Ex. PW2/2. Petitioner has also proved that he took 59 days leaves from his office due to the injuries Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 sustained by him in the accident in question. He exhibited the said leave record as Ex. PW2/3. The ocular testimony of PW1 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW2 and the record produced by him during the course of inquiry is already noted above. In view of said leave record and payslip, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 27,052/ at the time of accident. Hence, a sum of Rs. 53,000/ (rounded off) (Rs. 27,052/ x 59/30) is awarded in favour of petitioner for loss of leaves. (Reliance placed on "Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors, MAC APP No. 770/11, decided on 21.05.12, Sandeep Mishra Vs. Vijay Kumar Yadav & Ors., MAC APP No. 215/10, decided on 04.09.12, Satyawati Wadhwa Vs. Jitender Singh & Ors, MAC APP No. 73/13, decided on 10.05.16 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Constable Mohar Singh & Ors., MAC APP No. 657/2015 decided on 16.10.17, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court) TRANSPORATION CHARGES
21. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner could not attend his duty w.e.f. 17.11.2014 till 24.04.2015 as he was admitted in Narinder Mohan Hospital & Heart Centre during the said period. The said fact is duly substantiated by the document i.e. Discharge Summary (Mark B) filed by the petitioner in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. It is further argued that since the petitioner could not attend his duty during the Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 aforesaid period, he was not paid transport allowance by his department for the said period. Thus, an amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
22. It may be noted here that the petitioner has failed to file his pay slip for the relevant period i.e. w.e.f. January, 2015 to March, 2015 for which it is claimed that he did not receive transport allowance from his department. In the absence of any document, I am not inclined to award any amount to the petitioner under this heard.
PAIN, DEPRIVATION OF AMENITIES OF LIFE, SHORTENING OF LONG LIFE, INCONVENIENCE, SADNESS, DISAPPOINTMENT, DEPRESSION AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL AGONY
23. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, he has also sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to his right lower limb. Apart from the fact that the relevant portion of his testimony in this regard, has gone unchallanged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, his ocular testimony is duly corroborated with his medical treatment record filed by him. Thus, he would Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
THE INCONVENIENCE DUE TO INJURIES IN CARRYING THE DAY TO DAY/ROUTINE WORK
24. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, he has also sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to his right lower limb, which is duly established from the Disability Certificate issued by SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 argued that petitioner had spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant. However, he has failed to lead any cogent evidence on record in this regard. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would also have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 10,000/ for conveyance charges and Rs. 20,000/ each for special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
26. As noted above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 15% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same is quite evident from the Disability Certificate dated 26.03.18 of injured. The certificate recites that said disability was permanent in nature.
27. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is still working in Delhi Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 Police as Head Constable. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that as per testimony of PW2, the petitioner has not suffered any loss of income after the accident. Ld. Counsel for insurance company also argued that the petitioner shall be getting pension from his employer even after his retirement. Hence, no compensation should be awarded to the injured under this head.
28. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of petitioner that he is entitled to compensation under this head as he would not be able to effectively do any avocation after his retirement from the service. However, it is fairly conceded during the course of arguments that the petitioner shall be getting the pension from his employer after retirement. In support of his submission, counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of "Deshraj Singh Gautam Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.", bearing MAC APP No. 632/2007 decided on 20.05.16.
29. Similar question directly arose for consideration before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in recent case titled as "Raj Kumar Malik Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., bearing MAC APP No. 161/2011 decided on 10.10.17. In the said matter, the injured/appellant was a government servant and had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 74% in relation to right upper limb. While dealing with the contention raised on behalf of claimant that no compensation for loss of Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 earning capacity in future has been awarded, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in para 5 of the order that loss of earning capacity post retirement, had to be considered by the award of compensation and for such purposes, the Tribunal could adopt the multiplier of 9. It further held that in such calculation, however, it would also need to be kept in mind that the claimant would have earned 50% of the last emoluments drawn as pension and thus, the consequent functional disability will have to make up for the loss against the balance. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Om Const. & Ors., bearing MAC APP No. 464/2011 decided on 03.11.17.
30. Now, turning back to the facts of the present case. As already noted above, the petitioner is still working in Delhi Police and he would in normal circumstances, retire from the services after attaining the age of 60 years and he shall be getting pension from his employer. He is shown to have sustained permanent physical impairment to the extent of 15% in relation to right lower limb. Having regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of injuries sustained by petitioner, as noted above, his functional disability is taken as 15% in relation to whole body. Applying the ratio of law discussed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cited decision, the loss of future income of petitioner comes out to Rs. 8,76,484.80 paise (Rs. 27,052X15/100X12X18). The pension to the extent of 50% would come out to Rs. 4,38,242.40 paise. Thus, a sum of Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 Rs. 4,38,000/(rounded off) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of income/leaves Rs. 53,000/
2. Pain, Deprivation of amenities Rs. 1,50,000/ of life, shortening of long life, inconvenience, Sadness, disappointment, depression and mental & physical agony
3. Inconvenience due to injuries in Rs. 1,50,000/ carrying the day to day/routine work
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/ attendant charges
5. Loss of future income Rs. 4,38,000/ Total Rs. 8,41,000/
31. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Although insurance company took the defence that the driving licence of driver was fake but it did not lead any evidence in this regard. Keeping in Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
32. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award compensation of Rs. 8,41,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 11.02.2015 till the date of its realization(except for the period of delay w.e.f. 28.05.19 till 09.06.2022). (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
33. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP was recorded on 11.12.2019. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/ shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account no. 33476288978 with State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0001189 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount be kept in Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 19 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
34. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 20 of 22MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
35. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 2,41,000/ in the aforesaid saving bank account mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 21 of 22 MACP No. 4443/16; FIR No. 1331/14.; PS. S.P. Badli DOD:09.06.2022 bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimant and to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XVI and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 09.06.2022 (VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 22 pages and each page is signed by me.
(VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Mohit Vs. Nirala Kumar Yadav & Ors. Page 22 of 22