IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], PRESIDING OFFICER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] S/o Lt. Sh. Ramesh Chand R/o H. No. 609/63, Gali No.3, School Block, Mandawali, Shakarpur, Delhi Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Lacho Prashad R/o 239, Govind Khand, Vishwakarma Nagar, Delhi Driver 2. Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. Yogender Singh Rathi R/o H. No. WZ-2382, Gali No. 5, Shri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi. Owner 3. Shri [ENTITY] C/o 1001, LGF, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Insurance Company Respondents Date of Institution : 03.03.2017 Date of Arguments : 18.04.2018 Date of Judgment : 21.04.2018 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 1/23 JUDGMENT:
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off this DAR filed by SHO, PS Madhu Vihar with the facts that on 01.02.2017, at about 11.50 pm, injured Satinder Kumar along-with [ENTITY] was going towards National Victor School by Motorcycle No. DL-14 SF 1418 being driven by [ENTITY] and reached in front of Karishma Apartment, IP Extension when suddenly a Truck bearing No. HR-55Y-7774 being driven by Respondent No. 1 [ENTITY] in rash and negligent manner struck against his bike and injured sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that the injured was removed to LBS Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Police lodged FIR No. 44/17 u/[SECTION] [ACT] with PS Madhu Vihar against the driver of the truck who was arrested. Police have filed this DAR after investigation against the Respondents.
2. Respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. Driver and Owner have filed their separate WS thereby submitting that no accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle but was caused by some other vehicle but concerned police have falsely implicated the Respondent no 1 in this case just to assist the injured. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No. 3 and insurance company is liable to pay this compensation, if any, and driver was holding a valid DL and other documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were also complete, but it is prayed that this DAR is not maintainable.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 2/23
3. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Shri [ENTITY] has filed a reply thereby stating that this accident took place by the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle due to Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent vide Policy No. 101026/31/17/007252 valid for period from 29.06.2016 to 28.06.2017, in name of Ms. [ENTITY], but insurance company is not liable to pay this compensation. Insurance Company has made a legal offer to the injured for Rs.65,000/-, but it was not accepted by the injured. It is prayed that this DAR is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. From the pleading of the parties following issues are framed as under:
1. Whether Respondent No. 1 was driving vehicle bearing No. HR-55Y 7774 on 01.02.2017 at about 11:50 PM in front of Krishma Apartment, I.P. Extension, Delhi in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against motorcycle bearing No. DL-14SF 1418 as a result its occupant namely [ENTITY] fell down and sustained injuries? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP
3. Relief.
5. To prove the case, PW1, injured [ENTITY] has repeated his allegations leveled in the DAR that on 01.02.2017, at about 11.50 pm, he alongwith [ENTITY] was going towards [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 3/23 School by Motorcycle No. DL-14SF-1418 being driven by [ENTITY] and they reached in front of Karishma Apartment, IP Extension, when suddenly truck bearing No. HR-55Y 7774 being driven by Respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner struck against their bike and caused him grievous injuries. It is further deposed that he was removed to LBS Hospital where his MLC was prepared. It is further deposed that the Police lodged an FIR No. 44/17 u/[SECTION] [ACT] with PS Madhu Vihar against the Respondent No.1. It is further deposed that he remained under treatment on 02/02/2017 in LBS Hospital and thereafter in Kosmos Hospital between the period from 02.02.2017 to 04.02.2017. He was again admitted in hospital on 23/02/17 and discharged on 26.2.17 and doctor advised him for complete bed rest. It is further deposed that he was working as typist in The Supreme Court and was earning Rs.20,000 pm. It is further deposed that he has incurred Rs. 3,00,000/- on his treatment and still has difficulty in walking. It is further deposed that he has also spent Rs.35,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 8,000/- pm on attendant and Rs. 30,000/- on his special diet during treatment period. It is further deposed that the Police have lodged an FIR No.44/17 u/[SECTION] [ACT] against the Respondent No. 1 with PS Madhu Vihar and he was arrested and charge sheeted in this FIR. It is further deposed that he has suffered permanent disability besides suffering of mental shock and trauma as well as pain and suffering on account of this accident. He has relied upon documents i.e. DAR as Ex.PW1/1, Medical bills as Ex.PW1/2, Treatment Papers as Ex.PW1/3, Copies of Educational Documents as Ex.PW1/4, Copy of PAN card as Ex.PW1/5 and Copy of Aadhar Card as mark A. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 4/23 5.1. During cross examination, he has admitted that he has no document to prove that he is working with The Supreme Court as typist, but it is denied that he is not doing anything. It is further deposed that he is 12th passed. It is further deposed that he has no documents to prove that he has spent Rs.35000/- on conveyance, Rs.8,000/- pm on attendant and Rs.30000/- on his special diet. It is denied that this accident took place by the fault of [ENTITY].
5.2. PW2 [ENTITY] has proved the medical papers of injured from Kosmos Hospital as Ex.PW2/1 (colly). It is further deposed that the injured remained hospitalized between the period from 02.02.17 to 04.02.17 and thereafter from 23.02.17 to 26.02.17. Medical bills paid by the injured are Ex.PW2/2 (colly).
5.2.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that he has not brought his authority letter to produce these documents. It is further deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the treatment of injured.
5.3. PW3 Dr. [ENTITY] has proved the disability certificate of the injured [ENTITY] which is Ex.PW3/A, as per which, he suffered 47% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Disability sustained by the injured has not affected his working capacity as typist but he was not aware about the permanent disability of injured with regard to whole body.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 5/23
6. Respondents have not led any RE and RE was closed vide order dated 18/04/2018.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My Issue- wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO 1 - The onus to prove this issue was fixed upon the petitioner. To discharge this onus, petitioner has examined himself as PW1. He has repeated his allegations leveled in the plaint. Injured was required to prove the rash and negligence of the driver of offending vehicle to claim this compensation Under [SECTION] of [ACT] and legal proposition regarding it is well established. The law to this effect is relevant to be considered. It is held in [PRECEDENT] that the insurer, however, would be liable to reimburse the insured to the extent of the damages payable by the owner to the claimants subject of course to the limit of its liability as laid down in the Act or the contract of insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under [SECTION] of the Act. A similar proposition is held in case titled [PRECEDENT] dated 25/5/13 that rash and negligence is supposed to be proved to claim the compensation u/[SECTION] of [ACT]. Even the Hon'ble High of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] case titled [PRECEDENT] dated 23/07/2012 has held that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (the Act). Even the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 6/23 similar proposition has been repeated in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
8. The mode and manner of proving the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has also been considered in various other judgments and has held that the onus to prove the rash and negligent driving is not to be discharged beyond doubt or in the similar manner as a fact is to be proved in a civil case. Rather it has to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and a holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court made in [PRECEDENT] decided on 02.07.2012 is relevant that it has to be borne in mind that the [ACT] does not envisage holding a trial for a petition preferred Under [SECTION] of the Act. Under [SECTION] of the Act, a Claim Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. It is further held in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 7/23
9. Further, the approach of the tribunal has also been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT], that the Accidents Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter. As such, the case of the injured has to be decided in view of the above said proposition in this case.
10. In this case, PW1 [ENTITY] is the injured and has duly proved that on 01.02.2017, at about 11.50 pm, he along-with [ENTITY] was going towards National Victor School by Motorcycle bearing No. DL-14 SF 1418 being driven by [ENTITY] when Respondent No. 1 caused this accident by his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-55Y-7774. It is further proved that he was removed to LBS Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Police lodged FIR No. 44/17 u/[SECTION] [ACT] with PS Madhu Vihar against the Respondent No.1. Injured received treatment for the period from 02/02/2017 to 26.2.17 from LBS Hospital and thereafter from Kosmos Hospital vide documents Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. It is further proved that he sustained 47% permanent disability vide permanent disability certificate Ex.PW3/A. The oral testimony of PW1 has been duly corroborated by the medical record of the injured that he suffered grievous injuries. FIR No. 44/17 u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered with PS Madhu Vihar against the driver of the offending vehicle and has [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 8/23 proved that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. FIR has also corroborated the mode and manner of this accident. DAR is containing FIR, MLC of injured, site plan, seizure memo of offending vehicle as well as mechanical inspection report of vehicle and also arrest memo of Respondent No.1. Site plan was prepared by the police during investigation and has proved the location of the spot of accident. The offending vehicle was duly seized during investigation and was released on superdari. Respondent No. 1 was arrested in this case and was apprehended at the spot itself soon after this accident but ran away on the pretext of calling his owner after leaving the offending vehicle at the spot. As such, it stands proved that the Respondent No. 1 caused this accident by his rash and negligent driving and resulted into sustaining injuries by the injured. However, Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and is vicariously liable for this tortuous act of the driver. This Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
11. ISSUE NO. 2 - The onus to prove this issue was also fixed upon the petitioner/ injured. Since the petitioner has proved that this accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle due to he is entitled for compensation for his injuries.
12. The scope of the compensation in injury cases has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled [PRECEDENT] in the following words as under:
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 9/23 Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
13. Further, in [PRECEDENT], has laid down the following criteria to determine the compensation in injury cases as under:
6. 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 made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical Expenses.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 10/23 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 earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involved reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses- Item (ii) - 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. Decisions of this Court and the 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).
In view of the above said law, the damages / compensation of the petitioner have to be decided under the following heads as under:
14. Reimbursement of medical expenses: Petitioner has proved his Medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly.) and these bills have not been reimbursed against any Insurance Policy or from any other department, due to petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of such medical bills. As such, petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills of Rs. 92,915/-.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 11/23
15. Pain and Suffering: PW1 has proved that he sustained grievous injuries and also went through an operation consequent of this accident. He sustained 47% permanent disability to his left lower limb and remained under treatment. It is not disputed that a person who sustained such injuries and went through such medical process is bound to suffer pain and suffering due to injured is entitled for compensation under this head.
16. Conveyance & Special diet: Petitioner has not filed conveyance or special diet bills. However, he remained hospitalized and also roamed around to get treatment and expenses on conveyance were bound to happen. Even hospitalization of a person under such medical condition is bound to require special diet for fast recovery due to he is entitled for compensation under the heads of conveyance and special diet.
17. Attendant charges: Petitioner has not proved any bill to prove that he availed the services of any attendant to assist him during bed ridden period after this accident, but he suffered grievous injuries as well as permanent disability and difficulty in day to day work during bed ridden period was definite. It cannot be ruled out that he must be assisted by some attendant or family member during his hospitalization or thereafter, due to he is entitled for compensation under this head for 2 months @ Rs. 5,000/- pm.
18. Lose of Income during treatment period: Petitioner has proved that he was treated only for the period between 02.02.2017 to [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 12/23 26.02.2017 as per medical papers. He has deposed that he was working as typist with The Supreme Court but has not proved any document to this effect. He has also deposed that he has studied upto 12th class at the time of accident and has proved his documents to this effect. As such, there was no evidence of earning of the injured at the time of accident due to he is entitled for loss of earning as per minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time of accident in Delhi which was Rs.11,830/- for non Graduate. Petitioner is entitled for loss of earning for a period of 2 Months.
19. Lose of disability: Petitioner is entitled for compensation under this head as he has suffered 47% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has argued that this disability of injured cannot be considered for whole body in terms of same percentage as per disability certificate and he is not entitled for compensation to same extent of disability. However, the purpose of permanent disability certificate is to determine the actual as well as functional disability suffered by the injured during the accident. It is not disputed that the functional disability is to be determined as per [SECTION] of the [ACT] in terms of [SECTION] of [ACT]. It has held in [PRECEDENT] that, both the statutes provide for the mode and manner in which the percentage of loss of earning capacity is required to be calculated. They provide the amount of compensation in cases of this nature would be directly relatable to the percentage of physical disability suffered by the injured vis vis the injuries are specified in the [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Indisputably where [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 13/23 injuries are specified in the [SECTION], the mode and manner provided for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation would be applicable. The [ACT] would also be applicable to the claims applications arising out of the use of motor vehicles in terms of the provisions of the 1988 Act for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation where the victim of the accident suffers from disability in the cases coming within the purview of thereof. The note appended to the [SECTION] of the 1988 Act raises a legal fiction, stating that "injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement / permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per [SECTION] under the [ACT]".
20. In fact, permanent disability, therefore, for certain purposes have been co-related with the functional disability. Disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not substitute to each other; however, functional disability, thus, has a direct relationship with the loss of limb. As per disability certificate, it is 47%, but it is not covered under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and functional disability may be definitely less than it. But, it also cannot be disputed that the efficiency of the injured has definitely lessen by this injury, however this disability has not much affected the job work of injured as typist. In view of the facts, I determine the functional disability of the injured @ 20% as the disability. The future damages are also to be determined as per 20% permanent disability.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 14/23
21. Further, the multiplier of the damages has to be determined as per [PRECEDENT]. However, the determination of the age of the petitioner is necessary to apply this multiplier. The age of injured as per his 10th standard certificate was 27 years on the day of accident and multiplier for age group between 26 - 30 years is 17 and the loss of income of the petitioner has to be determined as per this age.
22. Now the income of the injured has to be determined. To prove the income, injured has not proved any document that he was earning anything. However, the injured is major and would be earning at least as per minimum wages prevalent in the year 2017 in Delhi for non graduate which was Rs.11830/- pm. The 20 % of Rs. 11830/- would be Rs. 2366/-. An additional 40% income i.e. Rs 946/- has to be added towards future earning in view of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
versus RAHUL GUPTA @ MANOJ KUMAR & ORS MAC.APP.542/2013 and the ruling of a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT]. This loss of income by permanent disability and future damages have to be multiplied by multiplier 17. In fact, the total loss would be Rs. 2366+ 946 = 3312 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 6,75,648/-.
23. Damages for convenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration and mental stress in life: Petitioner has proved that he was confined to bed and has suffered permanent disfigurement. Injured has suffered loss of amenities and enjoyment in life on account of fractures injuries [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 15/23 and inconvenience to him was bound to happen by these injuries. The disability certificate of the injured has proved the extent of discomfort and hardship suffered by him being 47% permanent disablement. The extent of mental stress may be presumed easily to a person who suffered such disability in his leg. As such, injured is entitled for the compensation for mental shock and stress and also under the other above said heads.
24. Compensation for future expenses: Petitioner has not proved any evidence that any such future medical expenses are required, due to he is not entitled for any compensation under this head.
25. As such, petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under:
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses: Rs. 92,915/-
2. Pain and Suffering: Rs.75,000/-
3. Attendant charges for 2 months: Rs. 5,000 x 2 = 10,000/-
4. Lose of Income during treatment period Rs. 23,660/-
for two months @ Rs.11,830/- pm:
5. Loss of earning capacity including future Rs. 6,75,648/-
due to this disability
6. Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 25,000/-
7. Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 50,000/-
shock :
8. Loss of amenities in life: Rs. 50,000/-
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 16/23
9. Damages for convenience, hardship, Rs. 50,000/-
frustration and permanent disfigurement.
Total = Rs.10,52,223/- (rounded off Rs.10,53,000/-)
26. Liability: Petitioner has proved that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and insurance policy is already on record. Respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle and caused this accident. Respondents No. 3 has not proved any violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy due to Respondent No. 3 is liable to pay this compensation amount on behalf of owner. However, Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that it was a case of contributory negligence due to 50% of the award amount of the injured has to be deducted as he was doing triple riding and amounts to contributory negligence. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no violation of the terms of insurance policy due to insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount.
27. I have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record. This FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of complainant [ENTITY] who was driving the vehicle boarded by the injured. As per the statement of the complainant, it is clear that the motorcycle boarded by the injured was also carrying two other passengers i.e. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] besides [ENTITY]. In fact, triple riding of the two wheelers is violation of law in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 17/23 itself and also punishable offence. The injured who was also part of this triple riding has definitely contributed to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing this accident. As such, it was not a case of violation of the terms of insurance policy but it was a case of contributory negligence of the injured and his compensation is liable to be deducted @ 25% towards contributory negligence and the same shall be deducted.
28. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,53,000/- from the Respondent No. 3 i.e. [ENTITY] with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any as directed by the court during the pendency of this case. The award amount also shall be deducted @ 25% towards contributory negligence of the injured. Respondent No. 3 is directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and his counsel. As such, petitioner has successfully discharged the onus to prove the issue No. 2 also and is entitled for the claim amount as above. The following award is passed as under:
AWARD This petition is allowed. Respondents No. 3 i.e. [ENTITY] is directed to pay compensation of Rs.789750 (10,53,000 - 263250 = Rs.7,89,750/- after deduction of [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 18/23 25% towards contributory negligence) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition till its realization to the petitioner and to deposit the award amount within one month from the date of this award. However, this award amount shall be subjected to further adjustment of the interim award, if any and also the waiver of interest, if any directed by the court during the pendency of the claim. Award amount be released to the injured / claimant after deposit by the Respondents No. 3 in terms of disbursement.
29. Disbursal of the Award amount: Now the disbursement of award amount has to be considered. The procedure of disbursement of the award amount has been provided in Clause-29 of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and the disbursement of the award amount in this case has to be considered.
29.1. Petitioner / injured shall be entitled for an amount of Rs. 89,750 out of Rs.7,89,750/- with corresponding interest instantly to be credited in his/her saving bank account nearby to her/his residence. Remaining amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be fixed into automatically renewable FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each w.e.f. July, 2018 onwards in the following manner as under:
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 19/23 Sr. No. Duration of FDR Petitioner
1. 6 Months Rs.50,000/-
2. 1 Year Rs.50,000/-
3. 1 Yrs. Rs.50,000/-
4. 2 Yrs. Rs.50,000/-
5. 2 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
6. 3 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
7. 3 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
8. 4 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
9. 4 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
10. 5 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
11. 5 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
12. 6 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
13. 6 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
14. 7 Yrs Rs.50,000/-
Total = Rs. 7,00,000/-
29.2. The interest on the above said FDRs shall be calculated on quarterly basis and to be credited automatically through ECS in the saving account of the petitioner nearby to his/her/their residence/s on quarterly basis. FDRs amount shall be paid on maturity basis in the same account of the petitioner/s against which interest amount is/are being credited through ECS automatically.
29.3. The Manager, UCO Bank or of any other bank as desired by the claimant/s shall open the saving bank account of the claimant/s or transfer to his/her/their existing account/s, if any, nearby to his/her/their residence/s after taking relevant documents.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 20/23 29.4. The withdrawal from the aforesaid bank account/s of the petitioners / claimant/s shall be after due verification by the bank and the bank shall issue photo identity card to the petitioner/s to facilitate the identity.
29.5. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, statement containing FDR numbers, FDRs amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished to the claimant/s.
29.6. No loan, advance or withdrawal / pre-mature discharge shall be allowed on the above-said FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal. The bank shall not open any joint account of the petitioner/s.
29.7. No cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the claimants/ petitioner/s without the permission of this Tribunal against the account in which amount is being credited. 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 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.
29.8. That the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to this 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 next date fixed for compliance.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 21/23 29.9. The bank shall prepare FDRs in its own name on the receipt of the award amount from the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company till the date petitioner/s approach for the release of the amount and thereafter amount alongwith interest shall be released to the petitioner/s per award of this Tribunal.
29.10. On the request of the petitioner/s, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other bank of UCO bank or any other bank according to the convenience of the petitioner/s. The claimants can operate the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank and on the request of the claimant/s, the bank shall provide the said facility.
29.11. The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and FDR to [ENTITY] Officer, UCO Bank, KKD, Delhi.
29.12. Petitioner / claimant (s) shall file a compliance report on next date of hearing about opening of saving bank account with the nationalized bank nearby to their/his/her residence and to get endorsed from the bank that no cheque-book, debit card or any other facility like ECS / NFTT etc. has been provided against this bank account.
30. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties concerned and also be sent to the court of Ld. MM concerned as well as DLSA, Shahdara. Copy of Form V duly filled shall be treated as part [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 22/23 of this award. File be consigned to RR and a separated file for compliance be maintained for 25.05.2018. Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date:
KUMAR 2018.04.21 16:55:25 +0530 Announced in open court ([ENTITY]) On 21.04.2018 [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 23/23