57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of 20 IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] : JUDGE : MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NORTH WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI New No. 5000916 MACT PETITION No. : 57410 UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0352512010 Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Chamru [ENTITY] R/o H. no. I357, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi Permanent R/o VPO Rajawar, Anchal Rajaun, Distt. Banka, Bihar. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Bharose Lal R/o C39, Rajiv Nagar, Delhi. Driver/R1 2. [ENTITY] At 303305, Garg Plaza, Pitampura, Delhi. Owner/R2 3. [ENTITY] Delhi. Insurance co/R3. Other details DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.10.2009 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 05.01.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2009 FORM - V 1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS [ACT] TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN [PRECEDENT]. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018. 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 1 of 20 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of 20 1. Date of the accident 10.10.2009 2. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal was at that time. (Clause 2) 3. Date of intimation of the accident by the No provision of DAR investigating officer to the insurance company. was at that time. (Clause 2) 4. Date of filing of Report under [SECTION] Not mentioned in the [ACT] before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR (Clause 10) 5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information No provision of DAR Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before was at that time. Claims Tribunal (Clause 10) 6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance No provision of DAR Company (Clause 11) was at that time. 7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). No provision of DAR (Clause 11) was at that time. 8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? No provision of [CASE NUMBER] was at that time. 9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No provision of DAR later on? was at that time. 10. Whether the police has verified the documents No provision of DAR filed with DAR? (Clause 4) was at that time. 11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, was at that time. whether any action/direction warranted? 12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No provision of DAR by the insurance Company. (Clause20) was at that time. 13. Name, address and contact number of the No provision of DAR Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. was at that time. (Clause 20) 14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No provision of DAR Company submitted his report within 30 days of was at that time. the DAR? (Clause 20)Without insurance 15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No provision of DAR liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of was at that time. the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23) 16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No provision of DAR the part of the Designated Officer of the was at that time. 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 2 of 20 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of 20 Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No provision of DAR of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24) was at that time. 18. Date of the Award 07.01.2019 19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No provision of DAR of the parties? (Clause 22) was at that time. 20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18) 21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 18.01.2018 directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18) 22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 01.11.2018 passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18) 23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above Claimant(s) (Clause 27) 24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner claimant(s) and the address of the bank with [ENTITY] [ACT] (Clause 27) savings bank a/c no. 20472491172 with SBI, Jagdishpur, Bihar IFSC : SBIN0010535 25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes is near his place of residence? (Clause 27) 26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition. (Clause 27) 27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 86143654123, Code, name and branch of the bank of the 110002427, Claims Tribunal in which the award amount is to SBIN0010323, SBI, be deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Rohini Courts, Delhi dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir [ENTITY]. 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 3 of 20 57410 [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] Page 4 of 20 JUDGMENT
1. The Accidental Information Report (hereinafter referred to as AIR) was filed in this case on 21.10.2009 with reference to FIR No. 22/09 U/[SECTION] [ACT] PS Rani Bagh in respect of grievous hurt sustained by the petitioner Sh. [ENTITY] in a road accident on 10.10.09 at about 7:30 am near Sant Nagar, Rishi Nagar, Sakurbasti, Delhi. The ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 08.12.2010 treated the same as petition u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act').
It is pertinent to note that in there are three injured in the present case namely [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The record would show that vide joint statement of injured [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] recorded on 11.02.2010 they had stated that they did not want any compensation in respect of injuries from the respondents as they had received minor injuries.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the AIR/file are that on 10.10.2009, at about 7:30 am, petitioner along with 78 workers were going to [ENTITY] with the machine of [ENTITY] contractor and when he reached near Sant Nagar, Rishi Nagar, Sakur Basti, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. DL1RY0160 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle" ) which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently hit the petitioner from back. Due to said impact, the petitioner fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. It has been stated that petitioner was admitted in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Delhi. The FIR no.22/09 PS Rani Bagh was registered u/[SECTION] [ACT].
3. Sh.[ENTITY]/R1/driver and M/s Chanson Car At Call P. Ltd./R2/owner of the offending vehicle have not filed their written statement and were ultimately proceeded against exparte vide order 28.11.2017 .
4. National Insurance co/R3 has filed its reply wherein it has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it in the name of R2 from the period 17.04.2009 to 16.04.2010 i.e. covering the date of accident 10.10.2009.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by learned Predecessor of this court vide order dated 30.08.2012 as under :
1. Whether on 10.10.2009 at about 7:30 am at Sant Nagar Chowk, Delhi, Taxi No. DL1RY0160 which was being driven rashly and negligently by [ENTITY]/R1 hit the petitioner and caused injuries to him?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
The petitioner/injured in support of his case has examined himself as PW1.
The record would show that respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
6. I have heard arguments addressed on behalf of ld counsel for petitioner and respondent no.1. I have also carefully perused the record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
7. Issue wise findings are as under: Issue No.1 The onus of proving this issue beyond preponderance of probabilities is on the petitioner.
The petitioner/injured has examined himself as PW1. He has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He has proved his voting Election ID card as Ex. PW1/1, entire DAR as Ex. PW1/2 (colly), his disability certificate as Ex. PW1/3 and his MLC as Mark C. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 10.10.2009, at about 7:30 am, he along with 78 workers was going to [ENTITY] with the machine of [ENTITY] contractor and when he reached near Sant Nagar, Rishi Nagar, Sakur Basti, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. DL1RY01600160 (offending vehicle ) which was being driven by its driver/R1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and hit him from back. He deposed that due to said impact, he fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that he was admitted in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Delhi.
PW1 was not cross examined by R1 and R2 despite opportunity given and his cross examination by R1 was nil, opportunity given. In the said circumstances, R1 shall be deemed to admit the above said testimony of PW1 to the effect that the case accident was caused on the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 whereby he sustained injuries.
PW1 was cross examined on behalf of insurance co/R3 wherein he interalia deposed that the accident occurred on 10.10.2009 while he was going from Shakurpur to Sant Nagar along with other persons while pushing the concrete mixture machine. He deposed that they were moving on the left side of the road and that the offending vehicle came from their back side. He deposed that he had seen the offending vehicle immediately after the accident and that he was shifted to the hospital in the same offending vehicle.
Nothing material has come on record in cross examination of PW1 to shake his version regarding the manner in which the said accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
The copy of FIR u/[SECTION] [ACT] is also on record. The seizure memo of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Indigo car is on record. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle is also on record which would show that it suffered fresh damages and its bonnet was dented from front left side.
There is thus nothing on record to suggest even remotely that R1 did not cause the said accident in the manner as deposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as placed on record and in view of above discussion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused by R1 while driving the above said offending vehicle negligently and that the petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident in question due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents to the effect that the case accident was caused at the above said date, time and place due to the rash and negligent driving of R1.
8. Issue no. 2.
In view of findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Petitioner has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that he was taken to Bhagwan Mahavir hospital, Delhi where his MLC was prepared. He deposed that he received fracture on his left leg and has suffered 6% permanent disability.
It is pertinent to note that vide court order dated 30.11.2011 Medical Superintendent of Dr. BSA hospital, Rohini, Delhi was directed to medically examine the petitioner by a medical officer/board and to file a report and pursuant to said directions of the Tribunal, the petitioner/patient was medically examined by the board of doctors at said hospital and gave the disability certificate no. 717 dated 21.12.2011 qua the petitioner which showed that he suffered 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg with post traumatic stiffness of left knee.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to following compensation: A Medical Expenses.
The petitioner has not placed on record any medical bill and hence, nothing is granted under this head.
B. Special Diet and conveyance PW1 deposed that he had spent Rs. 10,000/ on medical treatment, medicines, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. Petitioner has neither examined any witness to prove the expenditure on special diet and conveyance nor proved any bill/prescription in that regard.
Petitioner suffered grievous injuries and 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg with post traumatic stiffness of left knee. In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 2 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ is granted under the said head. C. Attendant Charges PW1 deposed that he had spent Rs. 10,000/ on medical treatment, medicines, special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. Petitioner has not examined any witness to prove the expenditure on attendant charges. It seems that the petitioner with the above said injuries must have required an attendant as the petitioner suffered grievous injuries with 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg and post traumatic stiffness of left knee. In view of above said discussion and taking the probable period of treatment for about 2 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ is granted under the said head. D. Loss of future earning capacity due to disability Petitioner suffered injuries with 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg with post traumatic stiffness of left knee. PW1 has proved his disability certificate as Ex. PW1/C. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent order in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir [ENTITY] & Ors, FAO 842/2003, date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held as follows:
"6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, education and other factors. 6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps:
(i) 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).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
It seems that due to the said permanent disability, the petitioner who is admittedly a labour could continue his work but would not be able to work with same efficiency after the said accident and permanent disability.
In view of above discussion and the injuries suffered by the petitioner, the functional disability of the petitioner in relation to his whole body and the effect of permanent disability on his actual earning capacity is taken as 5%.
Petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he was working as a skilled labour and was earning Rs. 12,000/ per month. The copy of aadhar card of petitioner is placed on record which mentions his date of birth as 01.07.1972 which shows that petitioner was aged about 37 years 7 months at the time of accident.
PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he was working as a labour on daily basis at the time of accident and was still working as a labour. He denied the suggestion that he was not working as a labour in Delhi.
PW1 has specifically deposed that on the date of occurrence he alogwith 78 workers was going to [ENTITY] with the machine of [ENTITY] contractor and the accident also occurred at Sant Nagar, Rishi Nagar, [ENTITY], Delhi. The same facts are also mentioned in the FIR. It would show that on the date of accident, the petitioner was working as a labour in Delhi.
Petitioner has not examined any witness to prove his employment details and monthly income. Further, petitioner has not placed/proved any educational qualification.
In view of above said discussion, it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker as fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the [ACT]. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker at the relevant time on the date of accident was Rs. 3953/ p.m. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to consider the income of petitioner as Rs. 3953/ per month on the date of accident in question.
E. Addition of Future Prospects.
In this regard, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. [ENTITY] & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of [ENTITY] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in [ENTITY] read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
( Emphasis Supplied) Refence is also made to the case of [ENTITY] vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of [ENTITY] (Supra) after referring to the judgment of the constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. [ENTITY] & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase in the income in a case where the income of the petitioner was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages with functional disability @ 10%.
In the case in hand, the petitioner was self employed and thus while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under [SECTION] of [ACT].
The age of the petitioner, as discussed above, in the present case was about 37 years and 7 months and he was self employed. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in [ENTITY] (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the established income as he was below the age 40 years at the time of his accident.
The monthly income of petitioner is thus calculated as 3953/ +40% of 3953/ which comes to Rs. 3953/+ Rs.1581 / (after rounding of)= Rs. 5534/.
The age of petitioner at the time of accident was about 37 years and 7 months the relevant multiplier of "15" is to be adopted as per judgment in case of [ENTITY] vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61(vi) in case of [ENTITY] (Supra). Accordingly, the relevant multiplier would be "15" as per judgment in case of [ENTITY] (Supra) which has been upheld in paragraph no. 61 (vi) in case of [ENTITY] (Supra).
The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 49,806/ [(Rs. 5534/per month x12 months x 15 (age multiplier) x 5/100(functional disability)]. F. Loss of Amenities of Life.
As discussed above, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries with 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg with post traumatic stiffness of left knee. In view of the said discussion, above mentioned injuries suffered by him and taking the probable period of treatment for about 2 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted under the said head.
G. Pain and Suffering As discussed above, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries with 6% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of fracture both bone left leg with post traumatic stiffness of left knee. In view of the said discussion, above mentioned injuries suffered by him and taking the probable period of treatment for about 2 months, a lump sum amount of Rs. 40,000/ is granted under the said head.
H. Loss of Income As discussed above, his monthly income has been taken as Rs. 3953/ p.m at the time of accident.
The probable period of treatment of petitioner was about 2 months. Therefore, loss of income of Rs. 7906/ (Rs. 3953/x2 months) is granted for 2 months.
9. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs. 1,57,712/ which is tabulated as below: Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/ 2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 10,000/
3. Attendant Charges Rs 10,000/
4. Medical Expenses Nil
5. Loss of income Rs. 7906/
6. Loss of Earning/disability Rs. 49,806/
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000/ Total Rs. 1,57,712/ Rounded of to Rs. 1,58,000/ ( Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only) The claimant/petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f 21.10.2009 till realisation of the compensation amount. The said interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded on the award amount by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case [PRECEDENT] .
The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
10. Liability In the case in hand, the National Insurance co/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that R1 and R2, who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit of offending vehicle was not valid and as per settled law. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir [ENTITY] and Ors., National Insurance co/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 1,58,000/ within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with the [ENTITY] as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank alongwith the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
11. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 27 [ACT] was recorded. I have heard the petitioner and ld. counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT], for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: Further, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ be released to petitioner in cash in his saving bank a/c no. 20472491172 with SBI, Jagdishpur Branch, Bihar i.e. the branch near his place of residence as mentioned in his statement recorded under clause 27 [ACT] with necessary endorsement regarding no cheque book and debit card in terms of orders of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER] dated 15.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 and remaining amount be kept in 36 FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 36 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir [ENTITY], FAO 842/2003 :
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or 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.
(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 pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
12. Relief National Insurance co/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 1,58,000/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition i.e. 21.10.2009 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal i.e. SBI , Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3/insurance to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the New India Assurance co/R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
National Insurance co/R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to R3 for compliance within the granted time. [ENTITY] is directed to place a report on record in the event of non receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
13. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir [ENTITY] & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] in [CASE NUMBER] titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir [ENTITY], the statement of petitioner was also recorded wherein he had stated that petitioner was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to the insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
14. Form IVB has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. The insurance co./R3 is also directed to obtain the copy of PAN card of the petitioner from the record.
[ENTITY] Date: 2019.01.07 17:28:41 +0530 Announced in open court ([ENTITY]) on 7th January 2019 PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi. FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident 10.10.2009
2. Name of injured Sh. [ENTITY]
3. Age of the injured 46 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Self Employed/labouri
5. Income of the injured. 5534/ per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured. For about 2 months
8. Period of hospitalization: 1 day.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details.
Yes. 6% permanent disability.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/ (iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/ (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 10,000/ (v) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 49,806/ (vi) Loss of income Rs. 7906/ (vii) Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12. NonPecuniary Loss: (I) Compensation for mental and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/ (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000/ (iv) Disfiguration (v) Loss of marriage prospects (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 6% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 5% relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income X 49,806/ %Earning capacity X Multiplier) (3953+40% of 3953x12x15x5%)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 1,58,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 1,30,350/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,88,350/
18. Award amount released Rs. 50,000/
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 2,38,350/
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of [ACT]
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 25.02.2019 (Clause 31) AMIT by [ENTITY] Date: 2019.01.07 17:28:55 +0530 ([ENTITY]) PO MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi.
07.01.2019