Delhi District Court
Shakuntla Devi vs Malkhan on 7 September, 2024
IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND,
==============================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01- MACT CASE No. 156/23 FIR No. 775/22, PS Sultan Puri In the matter of :
Shakuntla Devi, ....Petitioner no. 1
W/o Late Sh. Mohar Singh,
R/o N-165, Krishan Vihar,
Delhi
Malkhan S/o Sh. Rajju Lal,
R/o H No. P-2 Block in front of Koyla Park,
MCD Ground, Jhuggi, Sultanpuri
Delhi ...Driver/R1
Basanti, S/o Sh. Manphool,
R/o HIG DDA Flat, A Block,
3rd Floor, H No. 301, Sector -29,
Rohini, Delhi ....Owner/R2
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dist. Centre, Saket, Delhi ...Insurance Co./ R3
Date of institution of the DAR : 25.02.2023
Date of final Arguments : 05.08.2024
Date of Decision : 07.09.2024
Appearance (s) : Sh. Hari Shankar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for R1 & R2.
Sh. A K Singh, Ld. counsel for Insurance Company MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 1 of 21 JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accident Report (in short, the DAR) filed by IO SI Sonu Kumar in FIR No. 775/2022, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi pertaining to injuries sustained by Shakuntla Devi W/o Late Sh. Mohar Singh (in short, the injured) in road accident occurred on 10.09.2022.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 10.09.2022 at about 07.00 AM, the petitioner went to park for walking near RD Public School, Pooth Kalan Road and after sometime when the petitioner was returning back to home from Park and reached in front of RD Public School in the meantime, a Tractor bearing no. HR-13Q-4756 came from behind driven most rashly and negligently and hit the petitioner due to this forceful impact petitioner was greviously injured and suffered serious deformity Lt. Thigh, abrasion on Lt foot, unable to bear wt tenderness, bony crepitus and other multiple injuries all over body. After the accident, people nearby came to the spot and during this time, son of the petitioner Purshottam also came to spot and removed petitioner to Siddi Vinayak Hospital, where she was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on the same day and took treatment till 27.09.2022 and was again admitted in Medstar Hospital on 02.10.2022 and discharged on 05.10.2022 where treatment was administered for injuries received and later on she was discharged and again admitted to MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 2 of 21 Tomar Multispeciality Hospital on 23.12.2023 and discharged on 27.12.2023 where treatment was administered fro Fracture and mid shaftt of left femur and is still under treatment.
3. An FIR No. 775/2022, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi was registered U/s 279/338 IPC.
4. Right of R1 & R2 to file WS has been closed vide order dt. 19.09.2023.
5. Respondent no. 3 i.e TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed WS wherein it is stated that legal offer has been filed taking contributory negligence of 50 % on the part of injured as she was driving the motorcycle without DL.
ISSUES:
6. Following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 10.09.2023:
1. Whether petitioner Shakuntla Devi W/o Late Sh. Mohar Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 10.09.2022 at about 07.30 am, near RD Public School, Krishan Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-13Q-
4756 which was being driven by driver Malkhan, S/o Sh. Rajju Lal on the said date, time and place? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 Smt. Shakuntala Devi and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon Copy of Adhar Card as Ex. PW1/1, cop MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 3 of 21 of Treatment record and medical bills as Ex. PW1/2(colly) and DAR as Ex. PW1/3(Colly). She was cross examined on behalf of Insurance Company.
8. PW2 Shahid Khan has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A which bears his signature at pt. A & B. He relied upon Copy of Adhar Card is Ex. PW2/1. He was cross examined at length on behalf of respondents.
9. PW3 Dashrath Yadav is a summoned witness who has brought original attested record of treatment Ms. Shakuntala Devi who admitted on 11.09.2022 and took treatment till 03.10.2022 at 03.00 PM. The treatment record brought by him is Ex. PW3(Colly)(1 -48) RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
10.Respondent No. 1 has examined Sh. Malkhan as RW1 to lead its evidence. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW1/A bearing his signatures at pt. A & B. He relied upon the following documents as :-
1. Copy of Adhar Card of deponent is Ex. RW1/1(OSR).
2. Copy of Driving License is Marked at pt. A.
3. Copy of RC & Copy of Insurance is Marked at pt. B & C. He was later on cross examined at length on behalf of petitioner.
11. Respondent has examined Sh. Bhupender Dwevedi, Sr. Executive IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R3W1/A which bears his MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 4 of 21 signature at pt. A & B. He relied upon copy of notice and postal receipt as Ex. R3W1 and Ex. R3W1/2 and copy of Insurance Policy as Ex R3W1/3 and Authority Letter as Ex. R3W1/4.
ARGUMENTS & FINDINGS:
11.I have heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the testimony of the witnesses, the pleadings and the documents.
My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1 "'1. Whether petitioner Shakuntla Devi W/o Late Sh. Mohar Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 10.09.2022 at about 07.30 am, near RD Public School, Krishan Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-13Q- 4756 which was being driven by driver Malkhan, S/o Sh. Rajju Lal on the said date, time and place? OPP "
12.It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 5 of 21 Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
13.The testimony of petitioner against the respondent is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent was present at the spot and driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained injuries.
14. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent and she has faced criminal charges of injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Besides the above, respondent himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but she has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
15. R3 has lead two witness to prove his case. RW1 is the driver of the offending vehicle who has appeared in evidence. In his evidence, he has submitted that the petitioner was herself at fault. He submitted that the petitioner was sitting on the sand and slipped there from and MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 6 of 21 due to which, the injury was caused to her. One other witness i.e R3W1 has been lead by the Insurance Company whereby it is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid DL. It is also submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was having DL for private vehicle. However, he was driving the commercial vehicle at that time. In this regard, it is initiated that for the purpose of offending vehicle was used at that time has not been proved by the Insurance Company. Therefore, no clear finding can be given where the offending vehicle was used for private uses or for commercial uses. In the evidence of such witness, there is no default in the DL. Hence, this plea is also discarded.
16.In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
17.As the issue no. 1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
18.In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 7 of 21 compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the general principals with regard to compensation in injury cases.
"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 8 of 21
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv),
(v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability "
19.In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 9 of 21 shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
20.PW-1 deposed that he incurred Rs. 1,82,624/- on medical treatment of injured. All the medical documents/ bills have been relied upon by PW-1 as Ex. PW1/2(Colly). Keeping in view the nature of injury i.e. grevious injury, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 1,82,624/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
21.As per the MLC and medical documents, injured suffered grievous injuries in the road traffic accident on 10.09.2022. As per the medical bills and treatment placed on record, petitioner remained has remained admitted in Siddi Vinayak Hospital, where she was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on the same day and took treatment till 27.09.2022 and was again admitted in Medstar Hospital on 02.10.2022 and discharged on 05.10.2022 where treatment was administered for injuries received and later on she was discharged and again admitted to Tomar Multispeciality Hospital on 23.12.2023 and discharged on 27.12.2023. Therefore, he has remained in hospital for a period of about 12 days. The petitioner had to undergo operation. He suffered permanent disability of 59 % evaluated by BSA Hospital. The Disability Certificate reflects that the petitioner is suffering from 59 % Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his lower limb. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured for MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 10 of 21 the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by injured and duration of the treatment of him etc., an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of him treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Conveyance, attendant charges and Special Diet
22.Petitioner has suffered loss of income and incurred money on injury, medical treatment and special diet. However, he failed to place on record any corroborative material in this regard. However, as per the bills furnished by her, shows that he took treatment till 27.12.2022 i.e for a period of 4 months. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by her, he has visited hospital multiple times during the 4 months visit to hospital. Also petitioner has placed on record all the bills and treatment details of injured which shows that due to disability of 59 %, he must have kept attendant for a period of about 4-5 months atleast. Hence, reasonably a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as attendant charges and Rs. 30,000/- is awarded as conveyance charges and special diet. Hence, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- is awarded to the petitioner cumulatively under these heads.
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
23.Injured deposed that at the time of accident he was a housewife.
MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 11 of 21 Also, he has not placed on record any document to prove that she had studied at all. Also, in her written arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has deposed that she was a housewife. Hence, minimum wages of an unskilled person is to be considered i.e Rs. 16,506/- would be considered. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his prolonged medical treatment, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner would not have been able to resume his studies for a period of 04 months at least. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 66,024/- (Rs. 16,506/- x 4). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
24. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
25.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law with regard to assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 (16) SCALE As follows:
26. "13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 12 of 21 some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
27. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if the claimant continues in government service, though he maybe awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
28. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
29.In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company (supra) the effect of permanent disability of the injured has to be assessed in order to quantify the future loss of earnings due to disability. As per the disability certificate, petitioner has suffered 59 % Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to lower limb. Disability certificate has been issued by Department of Empowerment of Persons with disability, Ministry of Social Justice and MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 13 of 21 Empowerment, Government of India.
30.Petitioner was a housewife and doing all her household works on her own. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 59 % Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his right limb. The above disability would definitely lower/ reduce the learning capacity of a student and thereby hamper his earning capacity in future also. The petitioner being an old lady and having been permanently disabled to the extent of 59 % would practically be unable to do any meaningful acts and would also be dependent on others. Hence, it would be appropriate to hold that the functional disability of petitioner i.e 59 % be considered as 100 %. This Tribunal has already held that petitioner is entitled for minimum wages as of matriculate amounting to Rs. 16,506/- per month at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, DAR reflects that he was aged about 72 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is not entitled to future MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 14 of 21 prospects as per the observations made by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, SLP (CIVIL) 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017.
31.Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No.
1 Monthly Income of injured
Rs. 16,506/-
(A)
2 Monthly loss of earning 16506/- 100 % of
(B) (A)
3 Annual Loss of earning 1,98,072/- (B) x 12 =
(C) (C)
4 Multiplier @ 5
5 Total Loss of earnings (D) 9,90,360/- (C) x
5(multiplier
) = (D)
6 Add: Future prospects 10 99,036.0/-
%
Total : 10,89,396/-
32.(v) Loss of General Amenities and Enjoyment of Life
33.As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record i.e. disability certificate to establish that the petitioner is suffering from 60 % Loco Motor Disability with regard to MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 15 of 21 her lower limb. Considering the aforesaid, it is quite apparent that petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the said accident, during rest of her life and her quality of life has been definitely affected. Hence, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, the yearly loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life is considered to be for Rs. 10,000/- per year and the same is multiplied with the multiplier of 5. Hence, she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
34.Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses 1,66,116/-
2 Pain and Suffering 50,000/-
3 Loss of actual earning Rs. 66,024/-
4 Loss of future earning due to disability 10,89,396/-
5 Conveyance/ Attendant charges Rs.
and 60,000/-
special diet
6 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 50,000/-
Total 14,81,536/-
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further been pleased to Issue No.3/Relief MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 16 of 21
36.The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,81,536/- (Rs. Forteen Lacs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six Only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 25.02.2023 till actual payment. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
37.As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3 is liable to indemnify R-1 and R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 17 of 21 Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum.
38.ISSUE No.3/ RELIEF:
39.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this tribunal awards compensation of Rs. 14,81,536/- (Rs. Forteen Lacs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the DAR, i.e. 25.02.2023 till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.
APPORTIONMENT
40. The statement of Petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was not recorded. Hence, apportionment is withheld.
41. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(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 pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be 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 MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 18 of 21 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.
(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 along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
42. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in his MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
43. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, 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.
44. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Rohini Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 19 of 21 mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
45. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
46. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
47. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
48. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 20 of 21
49. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 07.10.2024.
50. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07th Day Of September, 2024 (SHIVAJI ANAND) ADJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 156/23 (FIR no. 775/22) Shakuntla Devi Vs. Malkhan.
Page no. 21 of 21